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 show cause notices for delay, highlighting importance of timely adjudication.</h1> <h3>CMA-CGM Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As APL (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Through The Secretary, Dept. of Revenue & Anr.</h3> CMA-CGM Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As APL (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Through The Secretary, Dept. ... Issues Involved:1. Legality of the delay in adjudication of show cause notices.2. Compliance with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Prejudice caused to the Petitioner due to the delay.Summary:1. Legality of the delay in adjudication of show cause notices:The Petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash three show cause notices issued in 2010 and 2011, citing an inordinate delay of almost 10 years in their adjudication. The Petitioner argued that the delay is contrary to the scheme of the Service Tax Act and has caused serious prejudice. The Respondents contended that personal hearings were granted, but the Petitioner did not attend. The court found that the Respondents failed to explain the delay and did not provide proof of the personal hearing notices allegedly granted in 2015 and 2017. The court held that the delay in completion of the adjudication proceedings cannot be attributed to the Petitioner and quashed the impugned notices.2. Compliance with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994:The court referred to Section 73(1) and Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994, which mandate specific timelines for the determination of service tax dues. The court emphasized that the statute prescribes a period of six months or one year for adjudication, depending on the case. The court noted that the Respondents overlooked this requirement, and no provision permits condoning such an inordinate delay. The court reiterated that adjudication must occur within a reasonable period to avoid uncertainty and prejudice to the assessee.3. Prejudice caused to the Petitioner due to the delay:The court observed that an inordinate delay in adjudication is seriously prejudicial to the assessee and can affect their legal rights and interests. The court highlighted that such delays could lead to irreversible changes, frustrating the adjudication process. The court also noted that delays could abridge the right of appeal and violate principles of natural justice. The court concluded that the delay in adjudication amounted to denying fairness and judiciousness, and arbitrary administrative behavior is antithetical to lawful adjudication.In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashing the show cause notices due to the unjustifiable and inordinate delay in their adjudication. No order as to costs was made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
