Reasonable time in tax adjudication defeats stale proceedings where unexplained delay breaches natural justice.

Even where no express limitation period applies, adjudication of a show cause notice must occur within a reasonable time; unexplained dormancy of about 13 to 14 years, without proof of proper call book treatment or notice to the taxpayer, vitiated the proceedings as unfair and contrary to natural justice. The Court therefore treated the order-in-original as void and quashed the impugned proceedings. It also held that the existence of an alternative appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge went to the fairness and legality of a stale adjudication and involved a substantial breach of natural justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether adjudication of the show cause notice and the order-in-original, after an inordinate delay of more than a decade, was vitiated for want of action within a reasonable time; (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy, where the challenge was founded on procedural fairness and violation of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether adjudication of the show cause notice and the order-in-original, after an inordinate delay of more than a decade, was vitiated for want of action within a reasonable time.

Analysis: The statutory scheme did not permit indefinite dormancy of adjudication merely because no specific limitation period was prescribed for the case as a whole. The record showed that the notice remained unattended for about 13 to 14 years, with no cogent explanation from the department and no proof that the matter had been properly kept in call book or that the petitioner or his predecessor had been informed. The Court applied the settled principle that administrative and quasi-judicial powers must be exercised within a reasonable time, and that prolonged inaction causes prejudice, defeats procedural fairness, and violates natural justice.

Conclusion: The adjudication was held bad in law and the order-in-original was declared void; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy, where the challenge was founded on procedural fairness and violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The grievance concerned the legality of a stale adjudication vitiated by inordinate delay, silence for years, and non-disclosure of the status of the proceedings. In such circumstances, relegating the petitioner to an appeal was not appropriate, because the complaint went to the fairness of the process itself and involved a substantial breach of natural justice. The availability of an appellate remedy did not oust writ jurisdiction on these facts.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held maintainable and the objection based on alternate remedy failed; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned show cause notice and the consequential order-in-original were quashed because the department's prolonged inaction and failure to justify the delay rendered the proceedings unsustainable, and the petitioner was not to be driven to an alternate remedy in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where no express period of limitation is prescribed, a show cause notice must be adjudicated within a reasonable time, and inordinate unexplained delay that causes prejudice and undermines procedural fairness vitiates the adjudication.

---