High Court quashes order for delays, emphasizes timely justice and fair consideration.

The High Court quashed the impugned order due to delays causing errors and prejudice to the Petitioner. Emphasizing the importance of timely justice, the Court directed a fresh decision by the Commissioner to ensure fair consideration of submissions. The Petitioner was instructed to appear for further proceedings, highlighting the necessity for expeditious disposal of cases to maintain confidence in the judicial process. The Court's decision focused on addressing delays and prejudice without delving into the merits of the case, ultimately disposing of the writ petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in pronouncement of the order.
2. Errors in the impugned order due to delay.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition despite the availability of an appellate remedy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Pronouncement of the Order:
The Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Thane, citing a delay of six months from the conclusion of the hearing to the pronouncement of the order. The case referenced the decisions in Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs. Asstt. Commr. Of Income Tax and EMCO Ltd. Vs. Union of India, which highlighted that such delays could cause significant prejudice to the litigant. The Court observed that "justice delayed is justice denied" and emphasized that the litigants must have complete confidence in the results of litigation, which is compromised by excessive delays.

2. Errors in the Impugned Order Due to Delay:
The Petitioner argued that the delay led to gross errors in the order, causing severe prejudice. Specific errors highlighted include the misapplication of legal provisions. For instance, the impugned order incorrectly cited Section 65(105)(zzzg) of the Finance Act, which pertains to 'Mailing List Compilation and Mailing,' instead of Section 65(105)(zzg), which relates to 'Management, Maintenance or Repair Service.' This misapplication was attributed to the delay in passing the order, leading to a mix-up between provisions and a resultant prejudice to the Petitioner.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain the Writ Petition:
The Respondent contended that the Petitioner should raise these issues before the Appellate Authority and that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked merely due to the statutory pre-deposit requirement. However, the Court, referencing the cases of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant and EMCO Ltd., noted that undue delay in delivering judgments could be grounds to set aside the impugned order without relegating the Petitioner to the appellate remedy. The Court emphasized that the delay and resultant prejudice warranted the High Court's intervention.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 12 July 2019, directing the Commissioner to take a fresh decision. The Court stressed the need for expeditious disposal of proceedings to ensure that all submissions are duly considered, thereby maintaining litigants' confidence in the judicial process. The Petitioner was directed to appear before the Commissioner on 24 February 2020 for further proceedings. The observations made were limited to the need for expeditious disposal and related prejudice, without reflecting on the merits of the controversy. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---