Adjudication order quashed for failing to communicate within one month and relying on hearings without prior notice; fresh hearing ordered

HC held the adjudication order invalid for failure to communicate within one month of the valid personal hearing and for relying on purported hearings that lacked prior notice. The court found a delay in communicating the order (six months from the last valid hearing) in breach of CBIC circulars and instructions, and concluded the extended limitation invocation was not sustainable on that record. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to afford a fresh, valid personal hearing and pass a fresh order. Application allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-existence and service of Show Cause Notice (SCN).
2. Violation of Circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
3. Jurisdiction and period of limitation.

Summary:

1. Non-existence and service of Show Cause Notice (SCN):
The petitioner argued that the SCN adjudicated was not served to them and seemed non-existent. The court found that although there was a typographical error in the SCN number, the petitioner had replied to the letters and submitted a defense against the SCN. Therefore, the court did not interfere with this issue.

2. Violation of Circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs:
The petitioner contended that the impugned order violated the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, specifically Clauses 14.10 of the Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017, and Clause 4.3 of the Instructions dated 18.11.2021. The court upheld this contention, noting that the adjudication order must be communicated within one month from the closure of personal hearing, which was not done in this case. The court cited precedents emphasizing the binding nature of such circulars and instructions on the Revenue Department.

3. Jurisdiction and period of limitation:
The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed beyond the normal period of limitation and lacked jurisdictional facts for invoking the extended period of limitation. The court did not interfere with this issue, stating that it involves factual interpretation and can be adjudicated by the appropriate authority. The petitioner was given the liberty to refer this issue if advised.

Conclusion:
The court remitted the case back to the Respondent No. 4 to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner. The court did not address other issues and merits of the case, allowing the petitioner to raise those issues before the respondent No. 4. The application was allowed, and any pending I.A. was closed.

---