2021 (4) TMI 694 - HC - GST

Court Orders Timely Adjudication, Condemns Unlawful Delays

The Court directed the respondent-Department to decide the matter within eight weeks, emphasizing the need for timely adjudication. It held that ... Pendency of Departmental Appeal - transfer of the matter to the call­book by Principal Commissioner of Customs - HELD THAT:- As this Court has kept open all the legal issues, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr. Vyas, on taking instructions, submitted that the matter shall be decided within a period of 8 weeks. Let the same be decided by the competent authority without raising any technical issue of jurisdiction - Application disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Non-compliance with Court directions by the respondent-Department.2. Delay in adjudication of show-cause notice.3. Validity of consigning matters to the call book.4. Legal implications of delay in adjudication proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Non-compliance with Court directions by the respondent-Department:The applicant, a proprietor, filed a detailed representation to the respondent-Department on 20.05.2020, claiming that the directions of the Court from the order dated 18.03.2020 were not complied with. The applicant sought specific details under the Right to Information Act on 15.06.2020 and discovered that the pendency of a Departmental Appeal was cited as the reason for non-compliance. The applicant approached the Court seeking revival of the original matters due to this non-compliance.2. Delay in adjudication of show-cause notice:The applicant highlighted that despite the passage of eight years since the CESTAT order, no adjudication had taken place. Instead, a show-cause notice for re-adjudication was issued. The Court was informed that the Department had not responded to any communications nor attempted to adjudicate the matter as directed. The Department justified the delay by stating that the matter was transferred to the call book pending the outcome of a similar case (M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India).3. Validity of consigning matters to the call book:The Court examined the practice of consigning matters to the call book, referencing previous judgments, including Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India. The Court held that the revival of proceedings after a long gap without proper explanation is unlawful and arbitrary. It was noted that the CBEC Circular No.162/73/95-CX dated 14.12.1995, which provided for consigning matters to the call book, did not have the authority under section 37B of the Central Excise Act. The Court emphasized that the CBEC does not have the power to issue instructions to adjudicatory authorities in pending matters.4. Legal implications of delay in adjudication proceedings:The Court referenced multiple judgments from different High Courts, which consistently held that undue delay in adjudication proceedings vitiates the entire process. The Court noted that the legislative intent, as reflected in section 11A of the Central Excise Act, mandates that adjudication should occur within a reasonable timeframe. The Court found that consigning matters to the call book for years without informing the petitioner was prejudicial and violated principles of natural justice. The delay and subsequent revival of proceedings without proper notice caused immense prejudice to the petitioner, making it difficult to defend the case due to the loss of evidence and unavailability of witnesses.Conclusion:The Court directed that the matter be decided within eight weeks, considering the decisions in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Parimal Textiles vs. Union of India. The Court kept all legal issues open and emphasized that the competent authority should decide the matter without raising jurisdictional technicalities. Both applications were disposed of, with all questions, including the applicability of the cited legal principles, kept open for consideration.