Belated request for a common adjudicator rejected where separate service tax proceedings were distinct and delay would result.

A belated request for appointment of a common adjudicator in separate service tax proceedings was not entertained where the matters arose from distinct show-cause notices and separate adjudication orders. The petitioners had not earlier challenged the competence of the respective adjudicating authorities, and the application for clubbing was made only after remand. The Court found that granting a common adjudicator would further prolong disposal and saw no sufficient ground to interfere with the rejection of that request. The separate adjudication process was therefore left undisturbed and the writ petitions were disposed of without relief on clubbing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the request for appointment of a common adjudicator for the petitioners' pending service tax matters was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The matters arose out of separate show-cause proceedings and separate adjudication orders, and the petitioners had never questioned the competence of the respective adjudicating authorities at earlier stages of the litigation. Although a common legal question existed, the factual bases of the individual matters were distinct. The request for a common adjudicator was made only at a later stage after remand, and allowing it would further prolong the proceedings. In the peculiar facts, the Court found no sufficient ground to upset the impugned rejection order.

Conclusion: The request for appointment of a common adjudicator was not accepted, and the refusal to interfere with the rejection order was in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of without granting the prayer for clubbing of adjudication, and the separate adjudication process was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A belated request for a common adjudicator, made after repeated rounds of adjudication and remand, need not be entertained where the individual proceedings are distinct and interference would only delay disposal.

---