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>18-Year-Old Notices Quashed for Lack of Transparency and Fairness in Communication Process.</h1> <h3>Mars Ship Repairs Pvt. Ltd., Versus Union of India, Pr. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai, Asst. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Division-V, Mumbai.</h3> The Bombay HC quashed show cause notices pending for over 18 years, emphasizing the necessity of informing the Petitioner when such notices are ... Delay in adjudication of show cause notices for more than 18 years - HELD THAT:- Series of decisions taken a view that if the show cause notice is transferred to the call book then it was incumbent upon the Revenue to have informed the Petitioner. Having not informed, this ground for justifying the delay in adjudication cannot be accepted. Reliance can be placed in COVENTRY ESTATES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR. [2023 (8) TMI 352 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and PRADEEP SUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2024 (11) TMI 910 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The impugned show cause notices set aside on the ground of non-justification for delay in adjudication in show cause notices for more than 18 years. Petition disposed off. Issues:Delay in adjudication of show cause notices for more than 18 years.Analysis:The High Court of Bombay heard a petition challenging show cause notices issued on multiple dates between 2006 and 2009, which had not been adjudicated for over 18 years. The Revenue Respondent claimed that the notices were transferred to the call book and hence not adjudicated. However, it was revealed that the Petitioner was not informed about this transfer, which the court found unacceptable. The court cited several previous decisions where it was held that the Petitioner must be informed if a show cause notice is transferred to the call book. Based on these precedents, the court quashed and set aside the impugned show cause notices due to the lack of justification for the delay in adjudication spanning more than 18 years.The court emphasized the importance of informing the Petitioner if a show cause notice is transferred to the call book. It held that the Revenue's failure to communicate this transfer to the Petitioner cannot be used as a valid reason to justify the delay in adjudication. By referencing various past judgments, the court established a consistent stance on the necessity of informing the concerned party about such transfers to ensure procedural fairness and transparency in the adjudication process. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Petitioner and disposed of the writ petition by quashing the show cause notices that had remained unresolved for an unreasonably long period.In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay, in line with its previous decisions, reiterated the principle that the Petitioner must be promptly informed if a show cause notice is transferred to the call book. The court's ruling to quash the show cause notices in this case underscored the significance of procedural regularity and timely adjudication in matters involving revenue disputes. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal obligation to ensure transparency and communication with affected parties throughout the adjudicatory process to uphold the principles of natural justice and fairness.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
