JUDGMENT :

G. S. Kulkarni, J.

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has again brought to the fore an issue of delayed adjudication of show cause notice dated 12 March 2010. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the same be quashed and set aside, considering the principles of law on delayed adjudication of a show cause notice.

3. This case would remind us of our observations in the decision in Coventary Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise & Anr., 2023(8) TMI 352-Bombay High Court wherein we observed that time and tide wait for none. It was observed that pendency of a show cause notice not only weighs against the legal rights and interest of an assessee, but also would adversely affect the interest of the revenue, which is a pure public interest, if prompt adjudication of the show cause notice is not undertaken. In the context of the present case, our observations we intend to underscore are that ‘a lapse of time and certainly a long lapse of time is likely to cause irreversible changes frustrating the whole adjudication.’ In our opinion, the present case is a fit case in the context of such observations as made by us. The peculiar facts of the case would unfold the saga.

4. Infrastructure Development Finance Co. Ltd. (IDFC Ltd.) is the original entity to whom the show cause notice in question dated 12 March 2010 was issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai – respondent No.2. It appears from the record that the show cause notice having remained to be adjudicated, has weighed against the interest of the revenue on account of certain irreversible changes, taking place at the noticee’s end, inasmuch as on 25 June 2015 IDFC Ltd. stood merged with a new entity, namely, IDFC Bank Ltd., under the orders dated 25 June 2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Subsequent thereto, there was a further significant restructuring of the new company IDFC Bank Ltd., inasmuch as another company known as Capital First Limited, a non banking finance company, was merged with IDFC Bank Ltd. By virtue of such merger, a new merged entity known as IDFC First Bank Ltd. stood enacted, i.e., the petitioner. This change occurred under the order dated 12 December 2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

5. It is on the above backdrop, the petitioner which was completely unaware about the existence of the impugned show cause notice, received an intimation dated 29 March 2022 from the office of respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner for a personal hearing on 19 April 2022 at 2.30 p.m. by video conferencing. Such notice admittedly was issued after almost 12 years of the issuance of the show cause notice and more particularly to the petitioner, which certainly in law was not the original noticee.

6. In such circumstances, the petitioner has contended that it would not be permissible for respondent No.2 in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case to adjudicate the show cause notice dated 12 March 2010 now after about 12 years, and that too, a show cause notice not issued to the petitioner but to a different legal entity i.e. IDFC Ltd. which itself had lost its existence in the year 2015 about 7 years, prior to the notice for personal hearing being issued on 29 March 2020. The petitioner in so contending would be correct, as the letter/notice dated 29 March 2022 was issued by the office of respondent No.2 intimating of a hearing being fixed, was itself addressed to IDFC Ltd. (a non-existent entity), which is certainly not the petitioner. It is ill-conceivable that merely for the adjudication of the show cause notice in question, IDFC Ltd. would have a re-birth, this cannot happen either factually or in law.

7. The petitioner in such circumstances was justified in contending before respondent no. 2 that the petitioner does not possess any record in