2024 (11) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issued by respondent no. 5 for re-initiating the adjudication proceedings in respect of the Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2008 (hereafter the impugned SCN). The petitioner contends that the said proceedings are now barred by limitation under Section 73 (4B) (a) and (b) of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereafter the Act). 2. It is relevant to note the material facts which are necessary to consider the said contention. Respondent no. 2 had issued the impugned SCN invoking the proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act proposing to raise a demand of Rs. 2,15,96,130/- on account of service tax for the period from 01.07.2003 upto 31.03.2008. Thereafter, on 12.11.2008, a corrigendum was issued requiring the petitioner to send its response to the impugned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mangalore v. Konkan Marine Agencies. The said appeal was disposed of on 11.01.2023 and the impugned SCN was removed from the Call Book on 28.04.2023. Thereafter, respondent no. 5 issued another Notice dated 10.08.2023 seeking to revive reinitiate the proceedings pursuant to the impugned SCN. 9. It is clear from the facts of the present case that there has been a gross delay on the part of the respondents in proceeding with the impugned SCN. As noted above, the concerned authority had taken no steps after 21.10.2009 till transferring of the case in the Call Book on 16.12.2015. Thus, even if it is accepted - which this Court does not - that the Call Book procedure is permissible in law, the delay in adjudication of the present case clearly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: (2007) 11 SCC 363, the Supreme Court had held as under: "18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors." 13. In Union of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals: (1989) 3 SCC 483 the Supreme Court had rejected the challenge to Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 as unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, on the ground that it did not provide for any period of limitation for recovery of duty. The Sup....