Petition dismissed as delay in customs proceedings caused by petitioner's non-appearance, not authority's inaction under Section 28(9)

HC dismissed petition seeking prohibition against respondent from adjudicating show cause notice allegedly barred by limitation under Section 28(9) of Customs Act, 1962. Court found petitioner was aware of notice dated 05.12.2022 but sought multiple adjournments for personal hearing and filing reply. Petitioner first appeared on 01.02.2023, when informed of extension granted by Chief Commissioner on 15.12.2022. Court held delay in proceedings was due to petitioner's non-appearance, not respondent's inaction. Extension was properly granted considering petitioner's own request for time. No grounds existed to restrain adjudication of show cause notices.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the show cause notices dated 28.01.2022 are barred by limitation under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Whether the extension of time for adjudication was validly granted.
3. Whether the principles of natural justice were followed.
4. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition given the availability of alternate remedies.

Summary:

Issue 1: Limitation under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962
The petitioner argued that the show cause notices dated 28.01.2022 should be deemed concluded as they were not adjudicated within one year, as mandated by Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent contended that the delay was due to the petitioner's repeated requests for adjournments and non-cooperation, which necessitated an extension.

Issue 2: Validity of Extension for Adjudication
The respondent stated that the Chief Commissioner of Customs granted an extension for adjudication under Section 28(9) via a letter dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure R-1). The petitioner was informed of this extension during the first personal hearing on 01.02.2023. The court found that the extension was validly granted, considering the petitioner's delays.

Issue 3: Principles of Natural Justice
The petitioner claimed that they were not given adequate notice or personal hearing regarding the extension of time. The court noted that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities for personal hearings and to file replies but sought adjournments. The court held that the principles of natural justice were duly followed.

Issue 4: Availability of Alternate Remedies
The respondent cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that tax matters should not short-circuit statutory remedies and that alternate remedies should be exhausted before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court agreed, stating that the petitioner had alternate remedies available.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the delay in adjudicating the show cause notices was primarily due to the petitioner's non-cooperation and requests for adjournments. The extension of time was validly granted, and the principles of natural justice were followed. Therefore, no grounds were found to entertain the writ petition, and it was dismissed. Pending applications were also disposed of.

---