9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said letters nor proved that the Petitioner had received those letters. In the absence of any such proof having been furnished by the Respondents, the statement in the Petition that, from 2013 to 2020, Respondent No. 2 did not take any steps for adjudication of the said show cause notices, have to be accepted - the delay in completion of the adjudication of the show cause notices for a period of almost 12 years cannot be attributed to the Petitioner. Further, in the absence of any explanation from the Respondents for the said delay, the impugned show cause notices are required to be quashed and set aside. The Petitioner is also justified in relying upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 468 of 2021 dated 21st August, 2023, (of which, one of us, G.S. Kulkarni, J, was a member) [ 2023 (8) TMI 1050 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in its own case, where on similar facts, the show cause notices were quashed on the ground of delay in adjudication of the show cause notices. Petition allowed. - G. S. KULKARNI FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Prasad Paranjape with Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Ms. Dhruvi Shah i/b. Lumiere Law Partners. For the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Tax (Rs.) 1 Show Cause Notice No. 408/2009 dated 18.09.2009 May 2006 to October 2008 23,69,43,418 2 Show Cause Notice No. 153/2010 dated 12.04.2010 November 2009 to September 2009 4,94,55,365 3 Show Cause Notice No. 91/2011 dated 01.04.2011 October 2009 to March 2010 3,14,51,000 4 Show Cause Notice No. 466/2011 dated 14.10.2011 April 2010 to March 2011 7,87,55,455 The aforesaid show cause notices further demanded penalty and interest from the Petitioner. 7. By its letters dated 15th September, 2010, 4th June, 2011 and 30th November, 2011, the Petitioner filed its reply to show cause notices dated 28th September, 2009, 1st April, 2011 and 14th October, 2011 respectively, denying each and every allegation made therein. Further, it is the case of the Petitioner that, from its records, it is not able to trace the copy of the show cause notice dated 12th April, 2010 or any reply filed in response thereto. 8. Thereafter, the Petitioner, in exercise of the option provided under Rule 4(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, in respect of all its offices across India, obtained Centralized Service Tax Registration No. AABCA273INST001 under the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 2. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more time. Further, by a letter dated 23rd July, 2015, another personal hearing was fixed on 4th August, 2015, and, on this occasion also, the Petitioner did not attend the personal hearing. Moreover, another personal hearing was fixed on 18th September, 2017 by a letter dated 1st September, 2017 issued by the adjudication Section of CGST Central Excise, Navi Mumbai Commissionerate but the same was returned with the postal remark left . Therefore, it is the case of the Respondent that further attempts were made for adjudicating the show cause notices. 16. In response to the said Affidavit-in-Reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 2, the Petitioner has filed an Affidavit-in-Rejoinder dated 27th October, 2023. In the said Affidavit-in-Rejoinder, the Petitioner has contended that the letters dated 23rd July, 2015 and 1st September, 2017 had not been enclosed with the Affidavit-in-Reply and have put the Respondents to the strict proof to produce both these letters. The Petitioner has, thus, not accepted receipt of these two letters calling for a personal hearing. 17. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. In our view, the Respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bom. 191, Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of CGST and CX, DIV-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissionerate 2022 (382) E.L.T. 206 (Bom.) and ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Ors. Writ Petition No. 3671 of 2022 the Court made the following observations :- 14. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, we are required to note the provisions of Section 73(1) and Section 73(4B), which reads thus: 73. Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded (4B) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of service tax due under sub-section (2)- (a) within six months from the date of notice where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases whose limitation is specified as eighteen months in sub-section (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under the proviso to sub-section (1) or the proviso to sub-section (4A). 15. Considering the plain consequences, Section 73(4B)(a) and (b) would bring about, it would be an obligation on the Central Excise Officer to determine the amount of service tax due under subsection (2), wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and the law itself would manifest to weed out any uncertainty on adjudication of a show cause notice, and that too keeping the same pending for such a long period itself is not what is conducive. 19. It is well said that time and tide wait for none. It cannot be overlooked that the pendency of show cause notice not only weighs against the legal rights and interest of the assessee, but also, in a given situation, it may adversely affect the interest of the revenue, if prompt adjudication of the show cause notice is not undertaken, the reason being a lapse of time and certainly a long lapse of time is likely to cause irreversible changes frustrating the whole adjudication. 20. We are also of the clear opinion that a substantial delay and inaction on the part of the department to adjudicate the show cause notice would seriously nullify the noticee s rights causing irreparable harm and prejudice to the noticee. A protracted administrative delay would not only prejudicially affect but also defeat substantive rights of the noticee. In certain circumstances, even a short delay can be intolerable not only to the department but also to the noticee. In such cases, the measure and test o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
