TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: "a) THAT this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the papers and proceedings leading to the records relating to Annexure B1 to B25 show cause notices and after looking into the same and the legality thereof, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the same. b) THAT this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.3 to 7 and sub-ordinate officers to desist from taking any actions pursuant to Annexures B1 to B25 show c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.2 A similar issue arose with respect to the petitioner's operations in Kerala, which stood finally resolved in favour of the petitioner by order dated 08.02.2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CESTAT"), Bangalore. 4.3 According to the petitioner, 25 Show Cause Notices are issued from 28.08.2002 till 26.05.2017 covering the period from August, 1997 to October, 2016 all of which are now in clear breach of statutory mandate of Section 11A (11) of the Customs Act. In the case of the petitioner, the issue itself has been resolved by CESTAT, Bangalore, against which no appeal has been preferred by the Department. Thus, by way of present petition, impugned 25 Show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnative remedy for redressal of his grievance. He relied upon para 2.1 of the affidavit-in-reply to buttress his submissions, which reads as under: "2.1 The petition is not maintainable and required to be dismissed on the ground of non fulfillment of "Sine Qua Non" that no demand no refusal for issuance of writ of mandamus and other writs. The petitioner could have availed of the remedy available to them under the law for the grievance of the same. It is most respectfully submitted that the captioned petition may be dismissed due to the fact that the main grievance raised by the petitioner in the captioned petition is against the transfer of the impugned 25 show cause notices to the call book and resultant delay in adjudication of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue. The respondents after keeping the impugned show cause notices in the call book, have not chosen to follow up it for unduly long period. It is very evident from the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents that it was only after the filing of this petition, the impugned show cause notices have been taken out from the call book and notice for personal hearing was issued to the petitioner. The act on the part of the respondents of keeping the impugned show cause notices in call book for unduly long period, without disclosing any reason for delay is arbitrary in exercise of powers and is also in violation of provisions of Section 11A of the Customs Act. It would in our opinion vitiate the entire proceedings. 10. Similar issue raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce dated 22.8.2002 and findings recorded thereon would pale into insignificance, if the same is to be viewed in light of observations of the Court in case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd (supra), Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. (supra) and other decisions cited as bar. 11. The ground of alternative remedy is also does not impress this Court in any manner, as there is clear violation of principles of natural justice, which cannot be overlooked by any authority, therefore, this ground is also not available to respondent. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent attempted to develop the ground for resisting this petition based upon plea of prejudice. We are of the view that said ground would also not be available to the....