9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lace on 18th September 2017 before Respondent No. 2 and pursuant to the personal hearing, Petitioner filed further additional submissions running into 500 pages on 10th October 2017. This shows that the office of Respondents was functioning post introduction of GST, i.e., post 1st July 2017. Therefore, the justification given in the reply of Respondent No. 2 for not adjudicating the show cause notice on account of revamping of jurisdiction cannot be accepted. The reason given is general in nature and in any case, if the reason was true then the functioning of the department during the period of implementation of GST ought to have come a stand still which is not the case because the department was functioning as evident by the fact of the proceedings which Petitioner attended in September and October 2017. Thus, relegating Petitioner to attend the show cause notice would be unfair, unreasonable and gross abuse of the power. Respondents have not filed any evidence in support of paragraph 6 of their affidavit to show even prima-facie that the show cause notice could not be adjudicated because of overall in functioning of department on account of implementation of GST. There are no hes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was fixed before Respondent No. 2 on 26th September 2023. On 25th September 2023, i.e., one day before the personal hearing, Petitioner filed additional submissions contending that the proceedings are required to be dropped on ground of delay in not adjudicating the impugned show cause notice. Petitioner also contended that the issue on merits is no longer res-integra in view of the order and judgment dated 7th July 2023 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5700 of 2019 in the case of Petitioner itself which reads as under:- Having regard to the fact that for the subsequent period, the Department has taken a stand that the bought-out items are not entered in the factory and the Assessee has not claimed credit on them, there is no case for adding their value in the assessable value and hence no proceeding need be initiated in the form of a show cause notice, we find that for the previous period, in respect of which this appeal arises, the stand of the Department cannot be contrary to what has been stated the above. Hence, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The Civil Appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. 7. On 26th September 2023, Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not adjudicated for a period of almost 6 years and it is only in September 2023 to revive the said show cause notice that a personal hearing came to be fixed on 26th September 2023. The only explanation given by Respondents for delay in adjudication is the change in the functioning of the jurisdiction on account of implementation of GST, which justification is reproduced above. 11. In our view, this justification cannot be accepted for more than one reason; firstly, after the show cause notice was issued on 5th May 2017, Petitioner filed a detailed reply of more than 400 pages on 1st July 2017. A personal hearing also took place on 18th September 2017 before Respondent No. 2 and pursuant to the personal hearing, Petitioner filed further additional submissions running into 500 pages on 10th October 2017. This shows that the office of Respondents was functioning post introduction of GST, i.e., post 1st July 2017. Therefore, the justification given in the reply of Respondent No. 2 for not adjudicating the show cause notice on account of revamping of jurisdiction cannot be accepted. The reason given is general in nature and in any case, if the reason was true then the functioning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod within which such adjudication should happen is as mandated by law and in any case it needs to be done within a reasonable period from the issuance of the show cause notice. Further, whether such period is a reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. An inordinate delay is seriously pre-judicial to the assessee 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 nullif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent that the respondent should be granted the liberty to conclude the proceedings, it was observed that except for the petitioners who had approached the Court to have the impugned show-cause notice set aside invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court of this Court, the show cause notice would have continued to gather dust. The Court observed that the petitioners, in such circumstances, cannot possibly be worse off in seeking a constitutional remedy and thereby suffer an order to facilitate conclusion of the proceedings, which was most likely to work out prejudice to them. The following are the observations as made by the Court: 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Bhagwandas S. Tolani (supra), Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) held that that a show cause notice issued a decade back should not be allowed to be adjudicated upon by the revenue merely because there is no period of limitation prescribed in the statute to complete such proceedings. Larger public interest requires that revenue should adjudicate the show-cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable period. It is held that keeping the show-cause notice in the dormant list or the call book, such a plea cannot be allowed or condoned by the writ court to justify inordinate delay at the hands of the revenue. This Court was accordingly pleased to quash and set aside the show cause notices which were pending quite some time. 25. In case of Sushitex Exports India Ltd. (supra) , Division Bench of this Court was pleased to quash and set aside the show cause notices which remained pending for adjudication from 1997. This Court considered the fact that though the petitioner therein was called for hearing in the year 2006, no final order was passed immediately after hearing was granted to the petitioner. It is held that the respondents seem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
