2024 (4) TMI 1223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in conclusion of proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994. The show-cause notice is dated 19.04.2021 and relates to the period October, 2015 to June, 2017 (Annexure-P-1). A further notice was issued for hearing, only as per Annexure-P-3 on 21.09.2023. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out from the Finance Act, 1994 that Section 73(1) speaks of a limitation of thirty months from the relevant date; which date is the due date of filing returns; falling on the 10th of the month succeeding. In the present case, the period is October, 2015 to June, 2017 and the relevant date would be 10th of July, 2017. The proceedings were issued not under Section 73(1) but under the proviso which substitutes the words 'thirty months' in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is filed only on the ground of the further delay in conclusion of proceedings. Sub-section (4B), we agree with the learned ASG, only provides that wherever it is possible, the proceeding has to be completed within one year; which is not a statutory mandate as such. However, the expediency required, as projected in the above provision, which is the intention of the legislature, has to be understood in the true sense of its tenor and spirit. 5. We look at the facts which indicate that after issuance of the notice on 19.04.2021 the first notice issued for hearing is on 21.09.2023. As far as the pandemic, we notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, In Re: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has not been scrupulously complied with, in the present case. 8. In so far as the decision in M/s Swati Menthol and allied Chemicals Ltd. (supra), we extract hereunder Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11:- "9. We find that the proceedings which were commenced by virtue of the two show cause notices referred to above have not been concluded although over a decade has passed. Be that as it may, we find that submission made by learned Additional Solicitor General as to concluding the proceedings within the time frame to be fixed by this Court needs to be accepted. 10. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and we remand the matter to the Commissioner of GST (adjudicating Authority) with a direction to conclude the pro....