The HC quashed the impugned hearing notice dated 18.09.2024 issued by respondent no. 5. Reinitiation of adjudication proceedings after a gap of nine years is time-barred u/s 73(4B) of the Finance Act. The delay in not concluding the hearing qua the impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2015 within the stipulated time period is unreasonable. The pendency of an appeal in another case on an identical issue before the CESTAT cannot justify keeping the present proceedings in abeyance. The HC held that Section 73(4B) requires proceedings to be concluded within six months/one year, and extending the same to nine years in the given facts is unreasonable. The petition is disposed of.
The HC quashed the impugned hearing notice dated 18.09.2024 issued by respondent no. 5. Reinitiation of adjudication proceedings after a gap of nine years is time-barred u/s 73(4B) of the Finance Act. The delay in not concluding the hearing qua the impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2015 within the stipulated time period is unreasonable. The pendency of an appeal in another case on an identical issue before the CESTAT cannot justify keeping the present proceedings in abeyance. The HC held that Section 73(4B) requires proceedings to be concluded within six months/one year, and extending the same to nine years in the given facts is unreasonable. The petition is disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
