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>Court Quashes Tax Notices After 27-Year Delay, Citing Breach of Procedural Fairness and Timely Adjudication Requirements.</h1> <h3>Tata Steel Limited (Growth Shop), formerly Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd (Growth Shop) Versus Union of India, Assistant Collector Central Excise Division-1, Jamshedpur, Superintendent, Central Excise Adityapur, Range-III, Jamshedpur, Superintendent (Adjudication), Central GST and Central Excise, Jamshedpur,</h3> Tata Steel Limited (Growth Shop), formerly Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd (Growth Shop) Versus Union of India, Assistant Collector Central Excise ... Issues Involved:1. Inordinate delay in adjudication of show cause notices.2. Validity of transferring cases to the call book.3. Judicial propriety and discipline in the context of pending writ applications.4. Compliance with procedural fairness and natural justice.Summary:Inordinate Delay in Adjudication of Show Cause Notices:The petitioners challenged the show cause notices (SCNs) issued between 1994 and 1997, and the subsequent personal hearing notices issued in 2022 after a lapse of about 27 to 29 years. The court noted the inordinate delay and quashed the SCNs and personal hearing notices, referencing a similar case (W.P.(T) No. 308 of 2023) where a 29-year delay was found contrary to Section 11A(11) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, leading to unreasonable and arbitrary results.Validity of Transferring Cases to the Call Book:The court examined the procedural aspects of transferring cases to the call book, referencing CBIC circulars and guidelines. It found that none of the conditions for transferring the cases to the call book were satisfied. The court highlighted the lack of justification for keeping the SCNs pending for 18 years after the issue had attained finality in 2004.Judicial Propriety and Discipline:The court criticized the respondent-Commissioner for passing the common Order in Original (OIO) just three days after the court's decision in W.P.(T) No. 308 of 2023, which quashed a similar SCN. The court emphasized that judicial propriety and discipline required the respondents to await the adjudication of the present writ applications, citing the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise & Taxation Officer.Compliance with Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice:The court underscored the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice, noting that the respondents' actions were unreasonable and violated these principles. The court referenced several judgments, including Eastern Agencies Aromatics Private Limited v. Union of India and GPI Textiles Limited v. Union of India, to support its stance on the necessity of timely adjudication and the adverse impact of undue delays on the petitioners.Conclusion:The court quashed the respective SCNs, notices of personal hearing, and the common Order in Original dated 17.02.2023. The writ applications were allowed, emphasizing the need for adherence to judicial propriety, procedural fairness, and timely adjudication in tax matters.
TaxTMI 