9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e event he intended to decide the Show Cause Notice and not the preliminary objections. In such situation, the Petitioner could not have been taken unaware of the intentions of the adjudicating officer. There cannot to be any vagueness in the course of quasi-judicial adjudication and by taking a party by surprise on what would be actually adjudicated, more particularly, when there was a High Court Order. To undertake a quasi-judicial adjudication is a solemn exercise which needs to be fulfilled with fairness and having all attributes of judicial adjudication. We may observe that the Order dated 1st December, 2023 passed by this Court was clear to the effect that, on 5th December, 2023, the Petitioner would raise before the adjudicating offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid terms. - G. S. KULKARNI FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Shah with Mr. Manish Mishra, Ms. Shareen Gupta, Mr. Srisabari Rajan, Mr. Tanay Vyas Mr. Mohammed Anajwalla i/b. J. Sagar Associates. For the Respondents : Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra with Mr. Ram Ochani,. ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER G.S. KULKARNI,J.):- RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. This Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for diverse reliefs in the context of challenge to the show cause notice dated 22nd September, 2023 issued by Respondent No. 1. The original substantive reliefs as prayed for read thus:- (a) that this Hon ble Court be pleased to declare t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by the adjudicating officer and decided within four weeks of the petitioner s being heard in that regard. All contentions on such issues are expressly kept open. 5. Liberty to both the parties to apply in the event the preliminary objection is decided at an early stage. 4. Thus, it is clear from the reading of the aforesaid order that the Petitioner had intended to raise preliminary objections, and which were permitted to be raised by this Court, to be considered and adjudicated at the hearing of the show cause notice which was fixed on 5th December, 2023. 5. The Petitioner, in pursuance thereto, on 5th December, 2023 filed its preliminary objections. A copy of which is annexed at Exh. A to the Additional Affidavit dated 8th February, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner s preliminary objections, as seen from paragraph 35 of the Order-in-Original. 8. Being confronted with the situation, the Petitioner prayed for amendment of the Petition for incorporating the following additional prayer, for setting aside the Order-in-Original. Prayer clause b-2 reads thus:- (b-2):- that pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the Respondents by themselves, their officers, subordinates, servants and agents be restrained from in any manner enforcing or acting upon the order bearing F. No.V/15-77/CGST/P-1/ADJ/Pepsico/23-24 dated 29.12.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 1. 9. Mr. Rohan Shah, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in assailing the Order-in-Original, has confined his submissions to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect that what was required to be considered by the adjudicating officer, would be the preliminary objections being raised by the Petitioner, which, in fact, were raised by the Petitioner. Mr. Mishra would not dispute that, even from what has been observed in the order passed by this Court, the only impression which can be gathered is that the adjudicating officer would consider the preliminary objections. Mr. Mishra, however has a peculiar submission to the effect that the law would not provide any discretion to the adjudicating officer to first decide the preliminary objections and, thereafter, take up the show cause notice, however, not disputing that order of this Court, firstly mandated the determination of the preliminary objections. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aise before the adjudicating officer its preliminary objections, it was such issue which was expected to be decided. This was clear from a reading of paragraphs 3 and 5 of the said Order passed by this Court. 12. Significantly, on the backdrop of the Court s Order dated 1st December, 2023, the Petitioner was not put to a specific notice that, apart from the preliminary objections, the show cause notice itself would be taken up for consideration and would be decided. The hearing on the preliminary objections took place on 5th December, 2023, sans a faintest idea to the Petitioner that a final order on the show cause notice would be passed. Further, no opportunity to place on record the relevant documents was granted to the Petitioner, nor th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
