Inordinate 13-Year Delay in Adjudication Proceedings Leads to Quashing of Show Cause Notices

The HC quashed show cause notices issued to the petitioner over 13 years ago due to inordinate delay in adjudication proceedings. The court found that while the respondents attributed delays to administrative reasons (CERA closure, transfer to Call Book, GST implementation), such extensive delay was unjust to the petitioner who had promptly responded to the notices. Citing precedent where similar delayed adjudications were set aside, the court ruled that the defense of keeping notices in the call book was insufficient justification. The writ petition was allowed without costs.

---

---

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.

---