TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the amendment made in Clause (105) of Section 65 by the Finance Act, 2005. 3. The present petition has a long history having been filed originally in the year 2008. The Petitioner is in the business of providing air-conditioning systems, DG sets, power backup systems, fire-fighting rooms, electric sub-stations, water tanks, transformers and installation services relating to the same in building complexes. 4. An audit was conducted of the Petitioner's records in June 2008. A letter dated 15th July, 2008 was issued against the Petitioner raising a demand of a sum of Rs. 35,40,956/-. This was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in the present writ petition along with other challenges to Section 65 (105) of Finance Act, 2005....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 4th September, 2018, has been filed by the respondent. 2. The respondent accepts that adjudication order pursuant to show cause notice No. 443/2018 dated 26th September, 2008, has not been passed. The affidavit further states that the proceedings before the authority were adjourned sine die in view of the letter dated 7th February, 2013 written by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has disputed the said assertion and submitted that the High Court, vide order dated 22nd July, 2009, had rejected and declined to grant stay of proceedings before the adjudicating authority. It is also submitted that the letter written by petitioner, dated 7th February, 2013, is being grossly misinterpreted. Said letter refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be taken up for hearing till 13th Sept, 2018." 7. Thus, whatever doubt remained was completely clarified with this order that there was no stay granted and in fact, the application for stay was specifically rejected. The Adjudicating Authority thus had no reason to keep the show cause notice in abeyance. The order in original, thereafter, has come to be passed on 28th February, 2019, which was again challenged by the Petitioner by way of an amendment. 8. In the said application, on 24th April, 2019, it was directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the Petitioner. The said amendment was also allowed on 25th July, 2019. The matter has been pending for hearing. 9. The writ petition got admitted and was again thereafter t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....construed as sanctioning lethargy or indolence. Ultimately it is incumbent upon the authority to establish that it was genuinely hindered and impeded in resolving the dispute with reasonable speed and dispatch. A statutory authority when faced with such a challenge would be obligated to prove that it was either impracticable to proceed or it was constricted by factors beyond its control which prevented it from moving with reasonable expedition. This principle would apply equally to cases falling either under the Customs Act, the 1994 Act or the CGST Act." 12. Recently, this Court has also had the occasion of considering similar matter in Vijay Enterprises vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs where the Court has observed as under :- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6. A few months later, it was retrieved on 3rd January, 2017. Thereafter, impugned SCN was again put in the call book on 3rd November, 2017 and taken out from the call book on 3rd May, 2019. Further, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Canon India (supra), the impugned SCN was again transferred to the call book on 17th March, 2021 and taken out from the call book on 31st March, 2022. 23. A perusal of the above would show that the impugned SCN, which was issued way back in 2008, due to repeated placing in the call book has not been adjudicated for so long. Repeated placing and removing from the call book is not a valid justification for non-adjudication of the impugned SCN for about 15 years. Moreover, the gaps between t....