TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AECR8650CSD001. 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 01.04.2013 to 30.09.2013 on 12.03.2014 and deposited service tax amounting to Rs.1,26,46,061/- for the period 2013-2014. A show cause notice dated 17.08.2015 was issued to the petitioner proposing a demand of service tax amounting to Rs.1,36,15,534/- and appropriation amount of Rs.1,26,46,601/- already deposited by the petitioner along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short 'Act 1994) and penalties under both Section 78 (I) of Act 1994 and Section 77 of Act 1994 read with Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 (for short 'Rules 1994'). Thereafter, petitioner was issued notices of personal hearing dated 21.08.2020 (P-2) and 21.09.2020 (P-3) and 08.12.2020 (P-5). Petitioner is challenging the above notices on the grounds mentioned below- "(i) The adjudication proceeding has become time barred in view of the lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he other hand, learned counsel for the respondent referred to reply dated 27.10.2022 Annexure R-1 which shows that on different dates, the petitioner was called for personal hearing right from 03.10.2016. Copy of Annexure R-1 reads as under:- Sr.No. Date of issue of letter of personal hearing Date at which the petitioner was to be appeared Remarks (if any) 1. 19.09.2016 03.10.2016 2 06.04.2017 11.04.2017 3 17.04.2017 26.04.2017 4 22.08.2017 31.08.2017 Returned back undelivered with remarks left 5 01.09.2017 19.09.2017 Returned 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... while considering the provisions of Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder, held: But, the same is not the position where the Commissioner decides to exercise his suo motu revisional I power to revise an appellate order. Significantly the words "on his own motion occurring in the enactment are conspicuously present in the proviso the legislature has excluded the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Sales Tax to revise an appellate order if invoked at the instance of a dealer or a person when such dealer or person has a remedy by way of an appeal. As noticed earlier, the limitation on the suo motu power of the Commissioner as to revise an appellate order has not been expressly provided in the proviso. In the absence of any expressed provisions, no limitation on suo motu power of the Commissioner to revise an appellate order can be implied. We accordingly hold that the provisions of proviso to sub-section (4)(a) of Section 23 of the Act do not prohibit the Commissioner to exercise suo motu revisional power to revise an appellate, order." 22. The question as to what would be the reasonable period did not fall for consideration therein. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. Having heard Learned Advocates for the respective parties, it is clear that though the show cause notice came to be issued in the present case in the year 2006 and it remained dormant for pretty long years without any adjudication, even after retrieving the case from the Call Book in the year 2009 the adjudication into the case did not 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 Department has failed to put forth any justification or show any explanation for delay in adjudicating the show ca....