Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (11) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ok procedure is permissible in law, the delay in adjudication of the present case clearly exceeds a reasonable period. Therefore, reinitiation of the proceedings are required to be set aside. Section 73 of the Act as applicable prior to 06.08.2014 did not provide any specified time for determining the service tax payable. By virtue of Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, Sub-section (4B) was introduced in Section 73 of the Act with effect from 06.08.2014. By virtue of Section 73 (4B) of the Act, the Adjudicating Authority is required to determine the amount of service tax due within a period of six months or one year from the date of notice as the case may be. However, there does not mean that the adjudication of Show Cause Notices issued prior to 06 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... HARMA For the Petitioner Through: Mr J.K. Mittal, Mr Mukesh Choudhry and Mrs Vandana Mittal, Advocates. For the Respondents Through: Mr Aditya Singla, SSC for CBIC with Mr Ritwik Saha and Mr Umang Misra, Advocates. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the Notice dated 21.08.2023 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued by respondent no. 5 for re-initiating the adjudication proceedings in respect of the Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2008 (hereafter the impugned SCN). The petitioner contends that the said proceedings are now barred by limitation under Section 73 (4B) (a) and (b) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereafter the Act). 2. It is relevant to note the material facts which are necessary to co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the respondents during the period of over five years after the last date of hearing dated 21.10.2009 and prior to the file being transferred to the Call Book. 8. The Revenue claims that the impugned SCN was put in the Call Book pursuant to the issues pending in Civil Appeal bearing no. 1765/2009 captioned Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore v. Konkan Marine Agencies. The said appeal was disposed of on 11.01.2023 and the impugned SCN was removed from the Call Book on 28.04.2023. Thereafter, respondent no. 5 issued another Notice dated 10.08.2023 seeking to revive reinitiate the proceedings pursuant to the impugned SCN. 9. It is clear from the facts of the present case that there has been a gross delay on the part of the respondents .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ior to 06.08.2014, could remain open indefinitely. 12. It is settled law that in absence of any specific time period prescribed for conclusion of proceedings, the same are required to be concluded within a reasonable period. In State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd.: (2007) 11 SCC 363 , the Supreme Court had held as under: 18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. 13. In Union of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals: (1989) 3 SCC 483 the Supreme Court had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a reasonable period of time. 15. In the present case, it is apparent that the Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2008 (the impugned SCN) has not been adjudicated within a reasonable period of time. More than 14 years have elapsed since issuance of the impugned SCN. It is also relevant to note that part of the demand sought to be raised pertain to a period more than twenty years prior to date of the impugned SCN. 16. Clearly, the adjudication proceedings are now barred by limitation. This issue is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Nanu Ram Goyal v. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Ors.: 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2188; and Sunder System Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 12137. 17. The impugned notice date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates