The court upheld that jurisdiction can transfer to a successor, and delays in adjudication can be justified; hence, orders passed beyond specified time limits may not be invalid if reasons are adequately documented.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. Challenging the order in original dated 16^th July, 2024, passed by the Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate, the instant writ petition has been filed. The petitioners seek to challenge the order primarily on the following three grounds, which are noted hereunder;

(a) Violation of principles of natural justice as according to the petitioners no proper opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioners by the Proper Officer,

(b) The Adjudicating Authority/Proper Officer who had heard the case did not have the competence to do so since, the show-cause was issued by an authority, different from the authority who had heard and passed the order,

(c) The order passed more than a month from the date of conclusion of personal hearing, being in conflict with the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs dated 10th March, 2017, stood vitiated.

2. To appropriately appreciate the above contentions, it is necessary to note down the facts giving rise to the instant writ petition.

3. The petitioners are engaged in the business of providing services as clearing and forwarding agents. In course of its business the petitioners were issued with the show-cause-cum-demand notice under the provisions of Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 dated 12th October, 2018. Such show-cause was issued by the Commissioner, Central Tax, Kolkata North, CGST & CX. The petitioners duly responded to the said show-cause notice on 5^th November, 2018. Further response was filed on 19^th February, 2019. Again an additional response was filed which was received by the department on 27th April, 2021. Following the above, the personal hearing had to be re-fixed as in the interregnum, since the incumbent to the post of Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate had been transferred to Haldia Commissionerate, the matter had been re-assigned before him and accordingly consequent upon his re-assignment, by a fresh notice a further opportunity of personal hearing was offered on 21st March, 2023. Still later, at the instance of the petitioners once again further opportunities of hearing were offered on 5^th September, 2023, on 19^th September, 2023 and on 17^th October, 2023. Following the above, the order impugned dated 16^th July, 2024 was passed.

4. Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners by drawing the attention of this Court to the order impugned has contended though an opportunity of hearing was offered to the petitioners and though the petitioners’ representative had appeared before the Adjudicating Authority/Proper Officer on 17^th October, 2023 as would appear from the impugned order, however, on such date no hearing took place as the officer concerned was not present. Subsequently, without offering further opportunity of hearing, the proceeding was concluded and the final order passed.

5. Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioners, has, however, been candid enough in submitting that there is no contemporaneous letter/document to substantiate the above. He would submit that the above failure to provide opportunity of hearing on 17th October, 2023 constitutes denial of the principles of natural justice. Independent of the above, it has been contended that once a show-cause notice was issued by the North Commissionerate Kolkata, it was ordinarily incumbent upon the authority to have the proceedings either concluded by the same authority, or if the same was not possible consequent upon his transfer, having regard to the circular dated 10th March, 2017, to have the same decided by his successor in office. The same ha