TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 773
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) calling upon the petitioner for a personal hearing, and prays that the respondents be restrained from proceeding in any manner pursuant to the impugned letter. 2. The petitioner claims that any such proceedings are barred by limitation as the respondents had failed to conclude the proceedings within a reasonable period from the date of issuance of the impugned show cause notice. The respondents claim that the proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice were kept in abeyance as the matter was placed in a 'Call Book' in terms of the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs (hereafter 'the CBEC') from time to time. 3. The question that arises for consideration in the present petition is - whether the respondents can continue the proceedings for adjudication of the impugned show cause notice, after the lapse of almost thirteen years? Factual Context 4. The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and engaged in the business of executing civil construction works. The petitioner claims that it executes contracts for civil works awarded by authorities, institutions and other entities including the Central Governme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nature of 'works contract'. The petitioner also claimed that the HBH was constituted by virtue of the Housing Board Haryana Act, 1971 (Act No. 20 of 1971) for addressing the housing needs of the public; therefore, it was performing a statutory function and was not liable to pay service tax. The petitioner also contended that assuming the services rendered by the petitioner were taxable services, the benefit of the Notification No. 18/2005-ST dated 07.06.2005 could not be denied to the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner claimed that the impugned show cause notice was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 73 of the Act. It also contested the computation of service tax and cess as stated in the impugned show cause notice. 11. On 16.06.2010, respondent no. 1 issued notice, scheduling a hearing on 30.06.2010 at 13:00 hrs inviting the petitioner to present its submissions. The petitioner could not appear on the said date and the proceedings were rescheduled to 02.07.2010. The petitioner appeared on the said date and advanced submissions in support of his contention. 12. The petitioner did not hear from the respondents thereafter till it received a notice date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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)". 19. It is settled law that where there is no period stipulated for exercising jurisdiction, the same must be done within a reasonable period. In Government of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras & Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 483, the Supreme Court had observed as under: "6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that Rule 12 is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it does not provide for any period of limitation for the recovery of duty. He urged that in the absence of any prescribed period for recovery of the duty as contemplated by Rule 12, the officer may act arbitrarily in recovering the amount after lapse of long period of time. We find no substance in the submission. While it is true that Rule 12 does not prescribe any period within which recovery of any duty as contemplated by the Rule is to be made, but that by itself does not render the Rule unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Circular No. 53/1990-CX dated 06.09.1990 and Circular No. 162/73/1995-CX dated 14.12.1995; furthermore, directing that the Chief Commissioner should monitor the progress of disposal of the 'Call Book' cases to ascertain whether the 'Call Book' cases have been reviewed by the Commissioner of Central Excise; whether any appreciable progress has been noticed; and there are any avoidable delays. 23. CBEC had issued Circular No. 53/1990-CX dated 06.09.1990 stating that "if a current case has reached a stage where no action can or need be taken to expedite its disposal for at least 6 months (e.g. cases held up in law courts), it may be transferred to the Call Book with the approval of the competent authority". The Circular No. 162/73/1995-CX dated 14.12.1995, also noted that the Commissioner Customs and Central Excise, Delhi had requested for inclusion of certain other categories of cases that could be placed under the said 'Call Book', namely, "(i) Cases in which the Department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority; (ii) Cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court / High Court / CEGAT, etc; (iii) Cases where audit objections are contested; (iv) Cases wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of the proceedings pending in the Supreme Court. 28. In the facts of the present case, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the validity of the procedure of placing the matter in the 'Call Book' as it is apparent that there is a gross delay on the part of respondent no. 1 and there are no justified reasons for the same. 29. As noted above, it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner's case was placed in the 'Call Book' as the Revenue had preferred an appeal in the case of M/s Sobha Developers Limited. The said appeal was disposed of on 17.01.2017 and the respondents had not taken any steps for concluding the proceedings for more than four and a half years thereafter. 30. As noticed above, the impugned letter seeking to recommence the proceedings was issued on 02.08.2022. There are no justifiable reasons to condone the said delay after the reason for placing the matter in abeyance - pendency of the appeal in the case of M/s Sobha Developers Limited 3 - had ceased to exist. 31. It is also relevant to note that the questions sought to be raised by the Revenue in the case of M/s Sobha Developers Limited 3 were covered by an earlier decision of the Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts and circumstances of each case". However, there was no justification for not adjudicating the notice for more than fifteen years after its issuance. The Court had also highlighted that it is necessary for the Revenue to inform the assessee that the show cause notice has been kept in abeyance, otherwise there would be no necessity for the assessee to preserve the record for the inordinately long period. In a latter decision in Parle International Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 8678, the Bombay High Court had observed as under: "26......An assessee or a dealer or a taxable person must know where it stands after issuance of show-cause notice and submission of reply. If for more than 10 years thereafter there is no response from the departmental authorities, it cannot be faulted for taking the view that its reply had been accepted and the authorities have given a quietus to the matter." 36. In ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 648, the Bombay High Court - in somewhat similar circumstances where the show cause notice had been kept in abeyance for more than seven to eleven years - allowed the petition. The Bombay H....