TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Inordinate 13-Year Delay in Adjudication Proceedings Leads to Quashing of Show Cause Notices</h1> <h3>Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Johnson and Johnson Ltd.) Versus The Union of India and Anr.</h3> Johnson and Johnson Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Johnson and Johnson Ltd.) Versus The Union of India and Anr. - TMI Issues:Petitioner seeking declaration of inordinate delay in adjudication proceedings of show cause notices and quashing the said notices.Analysis:The Petitioner filed a petition seeking a declaration that the adjudication proceedings related to show cause notices issued over 13 years ago were not maintainable due to excessive delay. The Petitioner contended that upon receiving the show cause notices, it promptly responded, but the Respondents did not take further action, leading the Petitioner to believe that no further steps would be taken. The Petitioner argued that it would be unfair for the Respondents to adjudicate the matter after such a long delay. The Petitioner cited various judgments to support this argument, emphasizing the principle that unreasonable delays in adjudication render the proceedings unjust.The Respondents, through their counsel, explained that the delay was not intentional but due to administrative reasons. They mentioned that the show cause notices were kept pending due to the closure of CERA and were later transferred to the Call Book. Subsequently, the introduction of the GST regime in 2017 necessitated a reorganization of the department, causing further delays. However, it was acknowledged that the Petitioner had timely responded to the show cause notices, and the delay in adjudication was not attributed to any fault on the Petitioner's part.The court noted that the Petitioner had diligently responded to the show cause notices and that the delay in adjudication was not caused by the Petitioner. Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted instances where show cause notices sought to be adjudicated after significant delays were set aside. The court emphasized that even the defense of keeping the show cause notices in the call book was not accepted in previous cases. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned show cause notices that had not been adjudicated for almost 13 years, ruling in favor of the Petitioner.In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the Petitioner and quashing the show cause notices due to the unreasonable delay in adjudication. No costs were awarded in the matter.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
