TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26,46,061/- (including Rs.54,75,724/-) (Annexure P-1) and notices of personal hearing dated 21.08.2020 (P-2) and 21.09.2020 (P-3) issued by respondent No. 3 and 08.12.2020 (P-5). The facts as stated in the petition are that petitioner is engaged in the provision of Works Contract Service, Business Support Service and Manpower/Supply Agency service and is registered having service Tax Registration No. AAECR8650CSD001. Respondent No. 4 on information, searched the premises of the petitioner and found that the petitioner had neither discharged the due service tax liability nor filed ST-E return for the period 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013, which was required to be filed on or before 25.10.2013. The petitioner filed ST-3 return for the period 01.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r:- "Section 73. Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded (1) xxx xxx xxx (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) xxx xxx xxx (4B) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amount of service tax due under sub-section (2)- (a) within six months from the date of notice where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under sub-section (1); (b) within one year from the date of notice, where it is possible to do so, in respect of cases falling under the proviso to sub-section (1) or the proviso to sub-section (4A)]." In the present case, the petitioner was issued shows cause notice on 17.08.2015 and thereafter, after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....back undelivered with remarks left 6 11.09.2017 29.09.2017 Returned back undelivered with remarks left 7 19.09.2017 29.09.2017 8 04.10.2018 15.10.2018 9 13.12.2018 27.12.2018 10 16.01.2019 24.01.2019 Returned back undelivered with remarks left 11 21.02.2019 2 8.02.2019 12 15.07.2019 24.07.2019 13 30.07.2019 07.08.2019 14 21.08.2020 28.08.2020 15 21.09.2020 08.10.2020 16 08.12.2020 14.12.2020 17 15.12.2020 24.12.2020 Learned counsel for the respondent has thus submitted that the petitioner was trying to mislead the department, as the petitioner vide its letter dated 25.08.2015 had acknowledged the fact that show cause not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rence at this stage can be made to Bhatinda District Co-op Milk P. Union Ltd's case (supra) wherein the question was 'what should be the reasonable period for reopening an order of assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act'. The appeal was dismissed and it was held that when no period of limitation is prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within reasonable period. in para No. 21 and 22, it was observed as under:- 21.Our attention has been drawn to a decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa & Anr. v. M/s. Halari Store etc. ((1997) 7 SCC 715] wherein this Court, while considering the provisions of Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder, held: But, the same is not the position wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 73 of Act 1994 came up for consideration before Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sunder System Pvt. Ltd's case (supra) wherein in para No. 9 to 11, it has been observed as under:- 9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of National Building Construction Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2019 (20) G.S.T.L 515 (Del.) has held as under :- "20......Sub-section (4B) to Section 73 of the Fin Act fixes the time or limitation period within which the Central Excise Officer has to adjudicate and decide the show cause notice. The time period fixed under Clause A or B is six months and one year, respectively. Limitation, period for passing of the adjudication order, described as Order-in- Original, starts from the date of notice under sub-section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot conclude till 24-5-2018, the petitioner cannot be blamed for non-adjudication of the show cause notice as he had never requested to transfer it to the Call Book or he has never delayed any proceedings pending adjudication In short, the petitioner is not responsible for the delay in adjudication at all. As such, delay in adjudication is not at all even explained by the Department. There shall not be any hanging sword, without any justifiable reasons on the petitioner to adjudicate the show cause notice at the whims of the Department. It is well settled in number of decisions that the adjudication proceedings have to be culminated within a reasonable time and if it is not done so, they stand vitiated on the said ground. 6.1 The Departme....