SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R. D. Dhanuka, S. M. Modak, JJ.
The Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Of Cgst & Cx, Div-ix, Mumbai Central Gst Commissioner - Respondent
Writ Petition No.2907 of 2021
Decided On : 14-02-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ishaan Patkar a/w Mr. Yash Dhond I/B Mrs. Alaksha Legal, for the Appellant; Mr. Vijay H. Kantharia a/w Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma, for the Respondent.

Adjudication of show-cause notice within a reasonable period to ensure natural justice.

Headnote:

Show Cause Notice - Delayed Adjudication - The court quashed and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 5 January 2007 issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner due to the gross delay on the part of the Respondent in adjudicating the notice, which was in violation of natural justice.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner impugned the Show Cause Notice dated 5 January 2007, as the Respondent did not proceed with the adjudication of the notice for over 14 years after its issuance.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Respondent did not inform the Petitioner about the Show Cause Notice being kept in call book, and the delay in adjudicating the notice was in violation of natural justice.

Issues: Delay in adjudication of Show Cause Notice, Violation of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a show-cause notice is issued, it should be adjudicated upon within a reasonable period to reach finality. The delay in adjudicating the notice and failure to inform the party about the notice being kept in call book was a violation of natural justice.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 5 January 2007, and allowed the Writ Petition in favor of the Petitioner.

JUDGMENT

R.D. Dhanuka, J. - Rule.

2. Mr. Kantharia, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent waives service.

3. By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has impugned the Show Cause Notice dated 5 January 2007 annexed as Exhibit 'A' to the Petition.

4. The Petitioner has filed reply to the Show Cause Notice within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said notice and did not get any further communication from the Respondent for hearing or any adjudication upon the said Show Cause Notice from the Respondent till today. The Petitioner has thus filed this Petition.

5. Mr. Patkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited our attention to the said Show Cause Notice and also to the averments made by the Respondents, more particularly, paragraph-5 of the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 27 August 2021. He submits that the Petitioner was never informed that the said Show Cause Notice was kept in call book at any point of time. He submits that the Respondent cannot be allowed to proceed with the Show Cause Notice after more than 14 years. In support of this submission, learned Counsel relied upon the unreported judgment in the case of Parle International Ltd. Vs. Union of India dated 26 November 2020 in Writ Petition No.12904 of 2019.

6. Mr. Kantharia, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue states that the stand taken by the Respondent is already set out in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent and on those grounds, the Petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief.

7. Perusal of the records indicates that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 5 January 2007. A reply was filed by the Respondent. It is not in dispute that no notice of hearing on the said Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner at any point of time. The Petitioner was not informed that the said Show Cause Notice was kept in call book as alleged in the affidavit-in-reply. There is no delay attributable on the part of the Petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent.

8. This Court in case of Parle International Ltd (supra) has dealt with the identical situation, where the Show Cause Notice was adjudicated upon after 13 years after the date of issuance. This Court after considering the judgments in the cases of Saghavi Reconditioners Private Limited Vs. Union of India, 2018 (12) GSTL290 and Raymond Limited Vs. Union of India, 2019 (368) ELT 481 (Bombay) where there was delay of 14 to 17 years in adjudicating the proceedings, this Court held that when the revenue keeps the show-cause notice in call book then it should inform the parties about the same. It serves two purposes - (1) it puts the party to notice that the show-cause notice is still alive and is only kept in abeyance. This would enable the party concerned to safeguard the evidence till the show-cause notice is taken up for adjudication; and (2) if the notices are kept in call book, the parties gets an opportunity to point out to the revenue that the reasons for keeping it in call book are not correct and that the notices should be adjudicated promptly. Thus, informing the parties about keeping the show-cause notice in call book would advance the cause of transparency in revenue administration.

9. This Court in the said judgement held that when a show-cause notice is issued to a party, it is expected that the same would be taken to its logical consequences within a reasonable period so that a finality is reached. In this case, the show-cause notice has not been adjudicated upon for about 14 years. We have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent. In the affidavit-in-reply, the Respondent does not allege that the Petitioner was informed about the show-cause notice having been kept in call book as sought to be alleged in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent. If the Respondent would have informed the Petitioner about the said Show-Cause Notice in the year 2007 itself, having been kept in call book, the Petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top