Unreasonable delay in statutory assessments can render long-pending proceedings unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Assessment orders passed almost ten years after Form-H notices were unsustainable because the governing Rule 25 framework required completion within a reasonable time. The Court applied the earlier Siemens Limited ruling that assessment proceedings cannot remain pending indefinitely, and found no legally adequate explanation for the prolonged inaction. The same delay defect affected the connected petitions, so the assessments were quashed as contrary to the statutory scheme and unreasonable delay principles.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment orders passed almost ten years after issuance of the Form-H notices were liable to be quashed for unreasonable delay and as being contrary to Rule 25 of the Cess Rules, 1996.

Analysis: The challenge turned on the inordinate gap between the issuance of the Form-H notices and the eventual assessment orders. The governing rule required the assessment process to be carried out within the framework of Rule 25, and the earlier binding decision in Siemens Limited had already held that such proceedings cannot be allowed to remain pending for an indefinite period and must be completed within a reasonable time. The Court found that the respondent-authority had remained inactive for years after the notices, and that the delay was not justified by any legally sustainable explanation. The subsequent binding rejection of the review petition reinforced that the earlier ruling continued to govern the issue. The same delay-based defect was present in the connected petitions as well.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were held to be unsustainable and liable to be quashed on account of inordinate and unreasonable delay.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded because the delayed assessments could not be sustained, and the connected matters were disposed of in the same manner.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory assessment that is left pending for an inordinate and unjustified period, beyond what is reasonable under the governing scheme, is liable to be quashed for unreasonableness and denial of fair adjudication.

---