9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. For the Petitioner: Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Jas Sanghavi and Adv. Vikas Poojary i/b PDS Legal. For the Respondents: Adv. Subir Kumar a/w Adv. Suman Kumar Das a/w Adv. Abhinav Palsikar a/w Adv. Ashita Aggarwal. P.C. 1. Rule. Respondents waives service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The above Writ Petition seeks to quash and set aside the impugned Show Cause Notice F. No. SG/ Misc-14 /2010-11/ SIIB (X)/JNCH and F. No. SG/Misc-150/2009 SIIB (X) dated 28.03.2013 issued by Respondent No. 2 (Exhibit A) to the Petitioner. The short point on which the aforesaid Show Cause Notice is sought to be challenged is the inordinate delay in adjudicating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, he submitted that it is not as if nothing was done in furtherance of the Show Cause Notice for all these years. He submitted that personal hearings were scheduled in October 2014, October 2015, October 2016, November 2016, November 2016, January 2017, May 2019, April 2021 and May 2023. He submitted that the Petitioner's representative attended the personal hearing on most of these days. He therefore submitted that in these circumstances, one cannot fault the department for the delay in the adjudication of the said Show Cause Notice. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition. It is not in dispute that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 28th March, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al justice. 4. The record shows that Respondent No. 2 issued a show-cause notice on 28 March 2013. Between 12 April 2013 and 2 September 2013, the petitioner sought copies of the illegible documents to file an effective reply. Ultimately, an interim reply was filed on 6 September 2013. 5. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents shows that personal hearings were scheduled on 7/10/18 October 2014, 19/21 October 2015, 18 October 2016, 15 November 2016, 18 November 2016, 10 January 2017, 15 May 2019, 30 May 2019, 14 April 2021, 19 April 2021 and 23 May 2023. The records also show that the Petitioner's representative attended the personal hearing on most dates except for two dates. Paragraph 5 of the reply filed on behalf of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents. We also have considered the submissions made by Ms. Punde on behalf of the Respondents. However, we are satisfied that this is a case of inordinate unexplained delay that has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner. 9. In similar circumstances, this Court has, through its several decisions, quashed the show cause notice and restrained the Respondents from proceeding further with the adjudication, which is inordinately delayed. In this regard, we refer to our decision in the cases of Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise & Anr. 2023 (10) Centax 38 (Bom), Paresh H. Mehta vs. The Union of India 2024 (10) TMI 1412, and M/s. Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Union of India & Ors. Writ Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
