Court quashes overdue demand notice, prejudicial to petitioner.

The Court quashed and set aside the Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated 12 October 2009 due to the inordinate and unreasonable delay in adjudication, which was found to be prejudicial to the Petitioner. The Petition was allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Show Cause cum Demand Notice due to inordinate delay in adjudication.
2. Transfer of records post-centralized service tax registration.
3. Impact of delay on the Petitioner's ability to respond and avail amnesty schemes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause cum Demand Notice due to inordinate delay in adjudication:

The Petitioner, APL (India) Pvt. Ltd., received a Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated 12 October 2009 for the period 2004-05 to 2007-08, demanding service tax and associated penalties. The Petitioner argued that the adjudication of this notice, initiated almost eleven years later, is ex-facie invalid, illegal, untenable, and unsustainable in law. The Court noted that Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994, prescribes a period of one year to complete adjudication where possible. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Parle International Ltd. vs. Union of India and Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. vs. Union of India, which set aside proceedings due to unreasonable delays. The Court concluded that the eleven-year delay, without sufficient explanation, rendered the proceedings unreasonable and prejudicial to the Petitioner.

2. Transfer of records post-centralized service tax registration:

Post the centralized service tax registration on 9 September 2010, it was the duty of the Divisional Officer to transfer relevant records to the new jurisdiction. Despite the Petitioner informing the authorities on 8 May 2013 about the centralized registration and requesting the transfer of files, the records were only transferred on 24 January 2019. The Court found that the Respondents failed to act promptly and responsibly in transferring the records, which contributed to the delay in adjudication.

3. Impact of delay on the Petitioner's ability to respond and avail amnesty schemes:

The Petitioner highlighted significant challenges in collating relevant documents due to the substantial lapse of time, changes in management, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. The delay also resulted in the Petitioner missing opportunities to avail amnesty schemes. The Court acknowledged these points, emphasizing that the Respondents' inaction and delay severely prejudiced the Petitioner's interests.

Conclusion:

The Court quashed and set aside the Show Cause cum Demand Notice dated 12 October 2009, concluding that the inordinate and unreasonable delay in adjudication was detrimental to the Petitioner. The Petition was allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.

---