9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplete idea of the case they were required to meet. The Petitioners reply is pretty thorough, and no serious grievance was made about any alleged vagueness in the impugned show cause notice. In Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another [ 2004 (1) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice was totally non-est in the eye of the law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine. The writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all the grounds that may now be highlighted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant could move a court of law against an appealable order. By not maintaining discipline and abiding by the decision, the appellant had wasted the public money and time of the courts. Petition dismissed. - M.S. SONAK JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioners Mr Vishal Agrawal, a/w Mr Abhishek Deodhar, Mr Rishabh Jain, i/b. TLC Legal LLP,. For the Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 UOI Mr Jitendra B. Mishra, a/w Mr Ashutosh Mishra, Ms Sangeeta Yadav, Mr Rupesh Dubey,. For the Respondent No.2: Mr Satyaprakash Sharma, a/w Ms Megha Bajoria,. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has only pressed for relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of this Petition, which reads as follows:- a) that this Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order dated 22 July 2024, based upon the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023. 5. On perusing the impugned show cause notice dated 07 December 2023 at Exhibit-I (pages 103 to 145 of the paper book in this Petition), we are satisfied that it is not at all vague but rather contains all material particulars, giving the Petitioners a very clear idea about the case that they were required to meet with. Therefore, the Petitioner made no serious grievance of any alleged vagueness in response to the notice. 6. The impugned show cause notice refers to the intelligence inputs based upon which the impugned show cause notice was issued. There is detailed reference to several factual aspects and the legal provisions, notifications an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned show cause notice or the corresponding difficulties allegedly faced by the Petitioners in responding to the impugned show cause notice. In the context of invocation of the larger period of limitation, there is only one statement that the noticee could not comprehend the exact allegations. Still, no less than six arguments were urged regarding the invocation of the larger period of limitation. 9. The contention that the impugned order dated 22 July 2024 admits that the impugned show cause notice was vague is misconceived. There is no such admission in the impugned order. The impugned order, which is quite detailed, has to be construed holistically. This is not the occasion to examine the merits of the impugned order dated 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the statute. 12. In the present case, considering the relief pressed, the argument was about violating the principles of natural justice because of the alleged vagueness of the impugned show cause notice. However, as noted above, there was no vagueness in the impugned show cause notice. The impugned show cause notice was quite detailed and gave the Petitioners a complete idea of the case they were required to meet. The Petitioners reply is pretty thorough, and no serious grievance was made about any alleged vagueness in the impugned show cause notice. 13. Mr Mishra, the learned counsel for the Revenue, pointed out that the impugned order least and considers no less than 15 grounds urged by the Petitioners in their defence. Accordingly, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the classification of service, the respondents ought to have responded to the show cause notices by placing material in support of their stand. Accordingly, the appeals against the quashing of the show cause notices were allowed. 16. In Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. Chairman Central Board, Direct Taxes and another (2004) 6 SCC 431 , the Hon ble Supreme Court held that it was settled law that the litigation against show cause notices should not be encouraged. The Court approved the decision of the High Powered Committee, which was eminently fair and aimed at preventing frivolous litigation. The Court held that the appellant s right was not affected. It was clarified that the appellant could move a court of law against an appealable orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
