9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same. In the absence of any period of limitation it is incumbent upon every authority to exercise the power of adjudication post issuance of show cause notice within reasonable period. The view expressed by a division bench of this Court in SUSHITEX EXPORTS (INDIA) LTD. ORS. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA ANR. [ 2022 (1) TMI 777 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . After 25 years, Petitioners, having approached this Court impugning the show cause notice, cannot be made to suffer an order to facilitate conclusion of the proceedings which, because of the inordinate delay in its conclusion, is most likely to work out prejudice to them. Had Petitioners not invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, the show cause notice would have continued to gather dust. It is concluded that not only the impugned show cause notice should be quashed, Petitioners are also certainly entitled to refund of amount of Rs.30,00,000/- - application disposed off. - WRIT PETITION LODGING NO.11860 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2022 - K. R. SHRIRAM A.S. DOCTOR, JJ. Mr. D. B. Shroff, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Prakash Shah, Mr. Anil Balani and Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/by Mr. Devraj Kansara for Petitioners. Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses of M/s. Rachana Enterprises and seized certain documents. On 02/08/1995, the Additional Director General of Anti Evasion searched the premises of M/s. Rachana Enterprises and recovered certain documents. In August 1995, the officers of Respondent No.1, i.e., Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) commenced inquiries into the exports imports of M/s. Rachana Enterprises and its transferees. During the course of investigation, Petitioners were made to pay an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) sometime in August 1995 though there was no demand notice or any other demand pending against Petitioners. According to Petitioners this deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) made M/s. Rachana Enterprises go out of business since then. 6. Petitioners were served with the show cause notice dated 27/06/1997 under Section 28 of the said Act after about two years of commencement of investigation. In the show cause notice it is alleged that the quantities of Poly Filament Yarn (PFY) were inflated in the export promotion copies of the Shipping Bills. The notice relied upon SASMIRA test report received to the effect that the fabrics exported contained lesser quantity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akened. A copy of the written submissions is annexed to the petition. 9. Petitioners thereafter were given to understand that the show cause notice was assigned to another adjudicating authority. It is at that stage Petitioners approached this court. 10. Mr.Shroff, appearing for Petitioners, submits that it is settled law that Respondents cannot deal with the matter in such a casual and cavalier manner. Adjudication has dragged for 24 years without any fault of Petitioners. Petitioners attended every hearing when intimation was served on them, but the authorities who heard the matter did not decide the case and failed to pass any adjudication order. Mr.Shroff submits that even though there is no limitation period prescribed for adjudicating a case after the show cause notice is issued, the basic and fundamental requirement is that it must be done and completed in a reasonable period of time. Due to lapse or inaction of Respondents, Petitioners defense is seriously compromised and crippled due to passage of 24 long years. Mr.Shroff submits that even the consultant who was originally appointed in 1997 had died, and Petitioner No.2, who was active partner of M/s. Rachana Enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.2022 (3) TMI 1162 Bombay High Court. 13. Ms.Majumdar, appearing for Respondent No.2, relying upon the affidavit in reply of one Mr.Ayush Goel Deputy Commissioner of Customs, affirmed on 18/11/2021, submits that the cause for delay was due to the matter being kept on call book for long due to administrative reason and since the case involves numerous noticees and one or the other kept on seeking adjournment, the adjudication got delayed. Ms.Majumdar also submitted that the time when the show cause notice was issued there was no statutory timelimit prescribed for adjudication. Ms.Majumdar also submits that due to case of M/s. Gaurav Impex in Civil Appeal No.85/2007 that was pending in the Apex Court, Petitioners case was transferred to call book first in November 2012 and was retrieved from the call book on or about 07/05/2015. Ms. Majumdar submits that since the said case of M/s. Gaurav Impex was still pending, Petitioners case was once again transferred to call book on 26/09/2017, and only in or about March 2020, after the Apex Court disposed the case of M/s. Gaurav Impex, Petitioners case was removed from call book after approval of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee and to such an extent as would give an opportunity to the assessee to complain that the Show Cause Notice having been issued decades back, it cannot be adjudicated. 12. In the present case, we find that the petitioners' argument is that it is impossible for them to remember what was the issue and some decades back, what are the records on which it is based and how it is to be presented. Possibly all the records with them are destroyed or the units having been rearranged, it is impossible for them to re-trace the records for want of staff and resources. In the circumstances, we do not think that the petitioners should be denied the relief. 13. We make the rule absolute by quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice. We declare that it cannot be adjudicated any longer. There will be no order as to costs. Special Leave Petition against this judgment was dismissed by Apex Curt (Union of India vs. Premier Ltd. (supra). 16. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Raymond Ltd. (supra) read as under:- 6. We specifically asked Mr. Jetly, Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue, whether any intimation was given to the petitioners either in 2001 or in 2013 that the show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 27 (Bom.). The underlying principle laid down in the said judgments is that in absence of any period of limitation, it is required that every Authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period. 17. Paragraph 23 of Parle International Ltd. (supra) reads as under :- 23. In the present case, it is evident that the delay in adjudication of the show cause notices could not be attributed to the petitioner. The delay occurred at the hands of the respondents. For the reasons mentioned, respondents have kept the show cause notices in the call book but without informing the petitioner. Upon thorough consideration of the matter, we are of the view that such delayed adjudication after more than a decade, defeats the very purpose of issuing show cause notice. When a show cause notice is issued to a party, it is expected that the same would be taken to its logical consequence within a reasonable period so that a finality is reached. A period of 13 years as in the present case certainly cannot be construed to be a reasonable period. Petitioner cannot be faulted for taking the view that respondents had decided not to proceed with the show cause notices. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cause notice in call book would advance the cause of transparency in revenue administration. 20. Ms. Majumdar also submitted that Petitioners had already replied to the show cause notice and had also attended the personal hearings and Respondents should be granted liberty to conclude the proceedings. To this, in our view, it will be apposite to reproduce paragraphs 15 and 16 in Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. (supra) and, it reads as under :- 15. We are also not persuaded, at this distance of time, to agree with Mr. Jetly that the respondents should be granted liberty to conclude the proceedings. It is the petitioners who have approached the Court to have the impugned show-cause notice set aside. Had the petitioners not invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the show-cause notice would have continued to gather dust. The petitioners, in such circumstances, cannot possibly be worse off for seeking a Constitutional remedy and thereby suffer an order to facilitate conclusion of the proceedings which, because of the inordinate delay in its conclusion, is most likely to work out prejudice to them. 16. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is an admonition to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been observed as follows: 9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence, equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B. 22. Following the aforesaid decisions, we direct that the sum of Rs.2 crore which the petitioners were required to deposit in course of investigation shall be returned with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit by the Petitioners.. Let such return be effected with interest within two months of receipt of a certified copy of this order by the respondents. 26. We therefore dispose the Petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c) which read thus :- (a) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
