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>Order set aside for 13-month delay; case remanded with instructions for fresh proceedings under CGST rules</h1> <h3>K. Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Union of India & 2 Ors.</h3> K. Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus The Union of India & 2 Ors. - TMI 1. ISSUES: 1. Whether a delay of 13 months in pronouncement of the adjudication order after conclusion of hearing affects the legality and validity of the order.2. Whether the adjudicating authority failed to consider relevant submissions and documents furnished by the petitioner due to the delay.3. Whether the delay in pronouncement of the order warrants setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. 2. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: 1. The Court held that the delay of 13 months in pronouncement of the order is impermissible and has caused 'some key issues [to] have escaped attention of the Authority,' thereby affecting the validity of the order.2. The Court found that the impugned order failed to take into consideration the 'relevant submissions advanced' by the petitioners, which is attributable to the delay.3. The Court set aside the impugned order solely on the ground of delay in pronouncement and remanded the proceedings for fresh adjudication, clarifying that if the Authority has changed, the adjudication shall be initiated afresh. 3. RATIONALE: 1. The Court relied on the principle that pronouncement of judgment or order 'cannot be postponed indefinitely' as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 53, emphasizing the need for 'speedy justice' and the preservation of the judiciary's stature and public confidence.2. The Court referred to the Apex Court's observations in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, highlighting the judiciary's responsibility to avoid undue delay in disposal of cases to maintain public trust.3. The Court also considered recent Apex Court guidance in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, which underscored the importance of timely delivery of judgments, especially in cases involving complex or novel legal questions, and issued directions to restore the image of the judiciary by avoiding delay.4. The Court did not examine the merits of the case and expressly left all contentions open for fresh adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
