TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1050
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2011 dated 05.10.2011 [Exhibit "A to C"], pending for adjudication before the Respondent No. 2, due to incoordinate delay of almost 10 years in their adjudication;" 3. Narrative of the relevant events :- (i) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of managing and distribution of logistics for export and import of goods. (ii) Prior to 9th September 2010, the Petitioner was operating under the Decentralised Service Tax Registration. However, on the Petitioner's application, the Respondents granted Centralised Registration for all its operations at Mumbai w.e.f. 9th September 2010. (iii) Respondents issued three show cause notices for demanding service tax on container detention charges, repair and maintenance of containers and incentives received from CFS. The details of the show cause notices and replies filed as under:- T A B L E Sr. No. SCN Date Period Date of reply 1. 15.04.2010 April 2007 to November 2009 14.05.2010 2. 01.04.2011 December 2009 to March 2010 04.06.2011 3. 05.10.2011 April 2010 to March 2011 30.11.2011 (iv) Meanwhile, on 28th November 2011, the case records of the Petitioner with respect to various show cause notices including the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition be dismissed because the Petitioner has not attended the hearing and the revenue should be permitted to proceed with the show cause notices. 6. Rejoinder of the Petitioner: In reply to the Respondents, the Petitioner in the rejoinder contended that they have not received any notice of personal hearing which is alleged to have been fixed on 4th August 2015 and 18th September 2017. The Respondents have not produced any proof of service of such notice of hearing and furthermore, the reference number referred to in the reply of the revenue does not match with the reference number of the original show cause notice. The Petitioner further contended that nothing prevented the Respondents from proceeding with the adjudication proceedings ex-parte, if the case of the Respondents is to be accepted that the Petitioner did not attend the personal hearing. The Petitioner also submitted that no proof of service of notice of 2015 and 2017 have been produced even pursuant to the RTI application made to the Respondents. 7. Analysis: We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents and with the assistance of the parties have perused the records of the petition. 8. In our vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to do so, in respect of cases falling under the proviso to sub-section (1) or the proviso to subsection (4A). 15. Considering the plain consequences, Section 73(4B)(a) and (b) would bring about, it would be an obligation on the Central Excise Officer to determine the amount of service tax due under sub-section (2), within six months from the date of notice or within a period of 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). Thus, the statute itself prescribes for such period within which the service tax would be required to be determined. Sub-section (1) of Section 73 would also be relevant when it restricts the liability to service tax, to the period of five years under the situations falling below the proviso to sub-section (4) in cases of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts, contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. 16. We are thus of the opinion that there has to be a holistic approach and reading of the provisions of Section 73, when it concerns the obligation and repository of the power t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cee's rights causing irreparable harm and prejudice to the noticee. A protracted administrative delay would not only prejudicially affect but also defeat substantive rights of the noticee. In certain circumstances, even a short delay can be intolerable not only to the department but also to the noticee. In such cases, the measure and test of delay would be required to be considered in the facts of the case. This would however not mean that an egregious delay can at all be justified. This apart, delay would also have a cascading effect on the effectiveness and/or may cause an abridgement of a right of appeal, which the assessee may have. Thus, for all these reasons, delay in adjudication of show cause notice would amount to denying fairness, judiciousness, non-arbitrariness and fulfilment of an expectation of meaningfully applying the principles of natural justice. We are also of the clear opinion that arbitrary and capricious administrative behaviour in adjudication of show cause notice would be an antithesis to the norms of a lawful, fair and effective quasi-judicial adjudication. In our opinion, these are also the principles which are implicit in the latin maxim "lex dilationes a....