Service tax adjudication proceedings barred by limitation after 14-year delay under Section 73(4B) Finance Act 1994

Delhi HC set aside a notice for re-initiating adjudication proceedings regarding a Show Cause Notice from 2008, finding it barred by limitation under Section 73(4B) of Finance Act, 1994. The court held that over 14 years had elapsed since the original SCN without adjudication, with authorities taking no action between 2009-2015. Despite the absence of specific time limits for pre-2014 notices, the court ruled that proceedings must conclude within reasonable time. The gross delay violated principles of natural justice, and respondents were restrained from proceeding with the original SCN.

---

---

Issues:
1. Impugning the Notice for re-initiating adjudication proceedings.
2. Barred by limitation under Section 73 (4B) (a) and (b) of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Delay in adjudication of the Show Cause Notice.
4. Application of Section 73 (4B) of the Act.
5. Reasonable period for concluding proceedings.
6. Precedents on reasonable period for adjudication.
7. Adjudication proceedings barred by limitation.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged the Notice re-initiating adjudication proceedings based on the Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2008, contending that the proceedings were time-barred under Section 73 (4B) (a) and (b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The impugned SCN proposed a service tax demand for a specified period, and despite responses and hearings, no further action was taken post a hearing on 21.10.2009. The respondents explained the delay citing a transfer to the Call Book. However, the Court noted a significant delay from the last hearing in 2009 to the transfer in 2015, deeming it unreasonable and exceeding permissible limits.

The Court highlighted Section 73 (4B) of the Act, requiring the Adjudicating Authority to determine service tax due within specified timeframes. It emphasized that even for Show Cause Notices issued pre-2014, proceedings cannot remain open indefinitely. Citing legal precedents, including State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd., the Court reiterated the necessity of concluding proceedings within a reasonable period, considering statutory rights and liabilities.

Referring to Union of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals and Sanghvi Reconditioners (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, the Court stressed the importance of timely adjudication in the interest of justice and larger public interest. In this case, the Court noted a delay of over 14 years since the impugned SCN, with demands dating back over twenty years, leading to a clear bar by limitation. The Court relied on previous decisions such as Nanu Ram Goyal v. Commissioner of CGST and Sunder System Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India to set aside the impugned notice and restrain further proceedings on the initial SCN.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned notice and restraining the respondents from proceeding with the initial SCN. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---