9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d passed the order in original after several years. The matter is fully covered by the decisions in VOS Technologies [2024 (12) TMI 624 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where the Court observed 'Ultimately it is incumbent upon the authority to establish that it was genuinely hindered and impeded in resolving the dispute with reasonable speed and dispatch. A statutory authority when faced with such a challenge would be obligated to prove that it was either impracticable to proceed or it was constricted by factors beyond its control which prevented it from moving with reasonable expedition. This principle would apply equally to cases falling either under the Customs Act, the 1994 Act or the CGST Act.' The impugned show cause notice dated 26th Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under :- "In case a demand is raised, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court." 5. Thereafter, on 26th September, 2008. A show cause notice was issued raising a service tax demand of Rs. 3,38,07,757/- (including cess). The Petitioner then sought to amend the present writ petition. The matter was then listed on 22nd July, 2009 on which date, a detailed order was passed in the application seeking stay as under :- "After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to grant stay of proceedings before the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 may pass the final orders. In case the demand is raised, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise all the issues questioning the said demand. CM stands disposed of." 6. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyance. "The petitioner had not asked and requested that the proceedings may be kept in abeyance. Learned counsel for petitioner has also drawn our attention to order passed by Commissioner (Adjudication), dated 7th February, 2013, which records "the matter is still pending in Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, it will be proper if the matter is kept in abeyance till the High Court decides the matter." 4. We are surprised that the adjudicating authority did not proceed with the hearing and decide show cause notice, in view of pendency of present Writ Petition, notwithstanding the fact that this Division Bench had specifically rejected the stay application. Hence there was no reason or cause to keep adjudication proceedings in abeyance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Additional Director General & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8756 and Nanu Ram Goyal vs. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Delhi, [(2023) 6 Centax 148 (Del.)]. 10. The show cause notice in this case is more than fifteen years old. There was no justification for the Respondents to keep the show cause notice adjudication pending. Despite the dismissal of the stay application, the Adjudicating Authority failed to adjudicate the show cause notice and has in fact, now gone ahead and passed the order in original after several years. 11. The matter is fully covered by the decisions in VOS Technologies (supra) where the Court observed as under :- "85. The position which thus emerges from the aforesaid discussion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itions. Despite this, the Court held that the SCN as also the final order that came to be passed in the corresponding proceedings would be liable to be quashed due to the delay in adjudication of the impugned SCN therein. 21. Considering the aforesaid discussion, the opinion has been unanimous of the Coordinate Benches of this Court as also of other High Courts, that placing of the matter on the call book and taking it up after several years would not be permissible, even if the order-in-original is passed. 22. Coming to the facts of this case, the Show Cause Notice dates back to 23rd May, 2008. The first notice for personal hearing was sent to the Petitioners on 15th January, 2010. Thereafter, communication for providing all the RUDs h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oordinate Bench of this Court, including the recent decision of this Court in Shri Balaji Enterprises v. Additional Director General New Delhi, W.P.(C) 11207/2023 (decided on 19th December, 2024). 24. Thus, following the decisions of the Coordinate Benches, the impugned SCN dated 25th May, 2008, deserves to be quashed and is accordingly set aside. 25. Considering that the impugned SCN which forms the basis for passing of the impugned Order-in-Original itself has been set aide, the said impugned Order-in-Original cannot be sustained or survive in terms of the settled principles of law. Thus, the impugned Order-in-Original also deserves to be quashed and is accordingly set aside." 13. In the present case, the two orders of this Court men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
