9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to regulate and thereby restrict the number of total adjournments with the apparent intent to allow the adjudication proceedings to conclude in a time bound manner. In the course of adjudication proceedings, number of dates may be fixed. There is no prescription of law to restrict the total number of dates fixed in an adjudication proceeding, to any number. Also, there is no other prescription of time other than the general limitation of five years. Therefore, it is possible that in the course of adjudication proceedings, adjournment may or may not be sought at any particular date fixed. That event would remain case/circumstance specific. Fixing three successive dates within a period of one week was not a desirable course to be adopted as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 15,64,083/-, and equal amount of two penalty (under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of CGST Act, 2017) and further five penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each and further penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, have been imposed. 3. According to the petitioner, the said order was served on him in March, 2024. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has relied on written instructions received by him that indicate that the notice in the adjudication proceedings were dispatched to the petitioner through e-mail as also through speed post at the permanent address that became known to the revenue authorities. In that regard, it may be noted, the petitioner was not registered under the Central Excise Act or the Finance Act, 1994 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the revenue would contend that the petitioner failed to appear before the adjudicating authority despite notice dated 27.01.2023 served on him through email. Written instructions produced today do indicate that such notice was dispatched through e-mail. Yet, the petitioner continues to deny receipt of such notice. Though the status of the dispatch of the notice through e-mail is established, as above, it is also claimed by the revenue authorities that such notice was dispatched to the petitioner by speed post. That was received. The petitioner denies that receipt on the assertion that the petitioner had never obtained registration at the address at which the respondent may have dispatched notice through speed post and in any cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, in view of the proviso thereto not more than three such adjournments can be granted. On a plain reading of sub-section (2) of section 33A of the Act and the proviso thereto, what the same envisages is fixing a date of hearing and in case if a party asks for time and makes out sufficient cause, then to adjourn the hearing. Since the number of such adjournments is limited to three, the hearing would be required to be fixed on each such occasion, and on every occasion when time is sought and sufficient cause is made out, the case would be adjourned to another day. However, the adjudicating authority is required to give one date at a time and record his reasons for granting adjournment on each occasion. It is not permissible for the adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on behalf of the petitioners on the dates specified in the notice and the adjudicating authority has proceeded on the footing that three adjournments have been granted and has passed the impugned ex parte order. Such order is, therefore, clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice warranting interference by this court in exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. Once the legislature contemplates the limits the total adjournments to three dates, it does not contemplate denial of opportunity of hearing. Rather, it seeks to regulate and thereby restrict the number of total adjournments with the apparent intent to allow the adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng is, the adjudicating authority did not pass any order on the third date i.e. 22.02.2023. At the same time, he fixed the proceeding for another date i.e. 23.03.2023. For that date, no notice is shown to have been issued to the petitioner inasmuch as 23.03.2023 would be the fourth date in the adjudication proceedings. The petitioner had a right to be informed of the same. 12. In view of the above, no useful purpose may be served in relegating the petitioner to the forum of the alternative remedy as his right of hearing has been seriously impaired. At the same time, in face of original show cause notice dated 19.10.2021 having been served on the petitioner and there being no denial as to that, the petitioner must be put to terms for the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
