IMPORTANT POINT
Timely adjudication of show cause notices is essential, and failure to communicate procedural developments violates natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Rule. By consent of the parties the petition is taken up for final hearing since the pleadings are completed.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner challenges the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 10th March 2015 issued by Respondent No.4-Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), which is now sought to be adjudicated after a period of almost 8 years.

Brief facts:-

3. Petitioner, carries on business as a sole proprietor in the name of style of “Global Marking”. Petitioner is engaged in the business of import and export of saffron. On 10th March 2015, a SCN was issued to Petitioner by Respondent No.4 to show cause why import duty foregone amounting to Rs.3,66,360/- should not be demanded under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest under Section 28AA/AB of the said Act. Petitioner replied on 2nd April 2015 giving detailed written submissions as to why the SCN should be dropped. Petitioner also requested for a personal hearing. Thereafter, for almost about 3 years, no steps were taken for adjudication of the SCN. On 23rd February 2018, Petitioner was informed that Respondent No.2-Commissioner of Customs has been appointed as Adjudicating Authority for adjudication of the aforesaid SCN. Petitioner was informed that he has not replied to the SCN dated 10th March 2015. Pursuant to the said intimation, Petitioner informed Respondent No.2 that he has already replied to SCN vide letter dated 2nd April 2015. Copy of the reply dated 2nd April 2015 was also re-filed with Respondent No.2. A personal hearing was fixed by Respondent No.2 on 17th April 2018 in furtherance of the impugned proceedings. However, Petitioner sought adjournment since he was not in town on that day. Thereafter, Respondents did not take any steps for adjudication of the impugned SCN and after almost more than 4 years thereafter and after almost 8 years from the date of the impugned SCN, again a personal hearing was fixed on 13th December 2022.

4. It is on aforesaid backdrop that the present petition is filed. Primary ground is that Respondents have not adjudicated the SCN for almost 8 years and, therefore, the impugned SCN is required to be set aside. Petitioner has relied upon more than 30 decisions of this Court, where the SCN has been quashed on ground of delay in adjudication.

5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Ms. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 sought to justify the delay in adjudication of the SCN by submitting that the case was transferred to call book in June 2018 in view of conflicting decisions on the issue. Respondents have also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Bagsons Paints Industry (India), 2003 (158) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) and submitted that there is no statutory bar to adjudicate the matter even after lapse of 9 years after the issue of SCN.

6. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder affirmed on 5th September 2023 and denied any intimation from Respondents with regard to transfer of his case to “call book”. We had given an opportunity to Respondents to file a sur-rejoinder, but Respondents’ counsel informed us today that they do not wish to file any sur-rejoinder. It is also important to note that Respondents in the reply have not made a positive statement that Petitioner was informed about his case being transferred to call book.

7. At the outset, it is important to note that admittedly, Petitioner was not informed about his case being transferred to “call book”. There is no proof furnished by Respondents that they have intimated Petitioner about his case being transferred, nor it is stated so in the reply or rebutted by filing a sur-rejoinder inspite of the fact that Petitioner has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has denied having received any such communication. Therefore, the justification sought for delay in adjudication of the SCN on the ground of transfer of