Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, S.M.Modak, JJ.
Reliance Transport and Travel Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No. 6097 of 2020
Decided On : 24-03-2022
Rule - Writ Petition - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Section 73(4B) - [Raymond Ltd., Parle International Ltd., The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited] - The court discussed the delay in adjudicating the show cause notices, the duty of the respondents to adjudicate within a reasonable period, and the need for intimation to the petitioner when transferring show cause notices to the call book. The court referred to section 73(4B) and emphasized the time limit for determining service tax dues. The judgment of the court was influenced by the principles established in previous cases and the duty of the respondents to act within a reasonable period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash several show cause notices and obtain consequential reliefs. The petitioner had shown cause to the notices, denied the allegations, and requested the respondent to drop the demands. The petitioner argued against suffering due to the delay in adjudicating the show cause notices and sought refund of amounts deposited under protest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had not passed any order on the show cause notices despite granting personal hearings to the petitioner. It also noted that there was no intimation to the petitioner when the notices were transferred to the call book. The court referred to previous judgments and held that the delay in adjudication was unjustified, ultimately allowing the writ petition and directing the refund of the amount recovered from the petitioner with interest.
Issues: The issues included the delay in adjudicating the show cause notices, lack of intimation to the petitioner about the transfer of notices to the call book, and the petitioner's request for refund of amounts deposited under protest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles established in previous cases, emphasizing the duty of the respondents to adjudicate within a reasonable period, provide intimation to the petitioner, and the time limit for determining service tax dues under section 73(4B).
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner with interest. No costs were awarded, and the parties were instructed to act on the court's order.
JUDGMENT :
Rule. Mr. Siddharth S.Chandrashekhar waives service for the respondents. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari and quashing and setting aside the impugned (i) Show Cause Notice No. 235/Commr/2011-2012 dated 24th October, 2011 (Exhibit A-1); (ii) Show Cause Notice No. 410/Commr/2012-2013 dated 4th September, 2012 (Exhibit A-2); (iii) Show Cause Notice No. 1010/Commr/2013-2014 dated 4th November, 2013 (Exhibit A-3); and (iv) Show Cause Notice No. 07/Commr/2014-2015 dated 20th April, 2015 (Exhibit A-4) with consequential reliefs.
3. The petitioner vide letters dated 14th February, 2012, 9th November, 2012, 17th April, 2014, 21st July, 2015 and 14th December, 2016 showed cause to those show cause notices and denied the allegations made in the impugned show cause notices and requested the respondent no.2 to drop the demands in respect of the said show cause notices. On 13th February, 2013, 18th June, 2015 and 19th February, 2016, the respondent no.2 granted personal hearing to the petitioner when the petitioner submitted additional documents and made detailed submissions.
4. On 18th December, 2013, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent no.2 in respect of first show cause notice and placed on record that the petitioner had not received any order of adjudication in respect of the said show cause notice. The petitioner thereafter never received any further intimation from the respondent no.2 in respect of any of the show cause notices nor received any copy of the order in respect thereof till the date of filing petition.
5. On 9th November, 2020, the petitioner filed this writ petition for various reliefs.
6. Mr.Arvind Datar, learned senior advocate for the petitioner invited our attention to the impugned show cause notices, the reply given by the petitioner to those show cause notices and would submit that though the respondent no.2 had granted personal hearing to the petitioner on 13th February, 2013, 18th June, 2015 and 19th February, 2016, the respondent no.2 did not pass any order on the said show cause notices nor gave any intimation from 2016 onwards which was the last date of hearing nor passed any order till date. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to the gross delay on the part of the respondents in not adjudicating upon the show cause notices in last several years.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner has deposited various amounts to the respondents during the course of investigation under the protest which amounts are liable to be refunded to the petitioner.
8. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Raymond Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2019 (368) E.L.T. 481 (Bom.), Parle International Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2021 (375) E.L.T. 633 (Bom.) and in case of The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, Div-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissioner delivered on 14th February, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 2874 of 2021.
9. Mr. Chandrashekhar, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner was granted personal hearing in respect of first four show cause notices before erstwhile Commissioner, Service Tax, wherein in support of their defence, they relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of M/s.Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrat P. Ltd. He submits that adjudicating authority have concurred with the proposal for keeping the files in call book in view of the fact that the said judgment of the Delhi High Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After enactment of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, w.e.f. 1st July, 2017, the files in respect of four show cause notices were received with Mumbai South, CGST & CX Commissionerate, Mumbai. After the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s.Inte
The duty of the respondents to adjudicate show cause notices within a reasonable period, provide intimation to the petitioner, and the time limit for determining service tax dues under section 73(4B)....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that show cause notices should be adjudicated expeditiously and within a reasonable period, and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to the ....
Adjudication of show-cause notice within a reasonable period to ensure natural justice.
Adjudication of show-cause notices should be done within a reasonable period to ensure transparency in revenue administration and to avoid violation of natural justice.
Delay in adjudication of show cause notices is a violation of principles of natural justice.
Inordinate and unexplained delay in adjudication of show cause notices under the Customs Act warrants quashing of such notices.
Giving notices for hearing after gap of 17 years, as in this case, is to catch the parties by surprise and prejudice a fair trial, as the documents relevant tot he show cause notices are not availabl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
