TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1094
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifest arbitrariness, thereby falling foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2.1. The petitioner was engaged in the manufacture and sales of welding electrodes. The petitioner was a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax, 1956. During the relevant assessment year viz. 2002-2003, the petitioner reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs.65,21,217/- and Rs.9,97,181/- respectively. The petitioner claimed exemptions on transactions which according to them constituted stock transfer in terms of Section 6A of the CST Act. While so, there was an inspection in the petitioner's place of business on 09.01.2004. During the course of such inspection, it is stated that certain files and records were re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt in W.P.No.39413 of 2004 dated 31.12.2004. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted its reply, wherein it was inter alia stated that the continuation of the assessment proceedings after more than 16 years since its initiation cannot be sustained and reliance was sought to be placed on a judgment of this court in M/s.Pondy Die Casting (P) Ltd vs Appellate Assistant Commissioner in T.C.(Revision) Nos.37 and 39 of 2017 dated 27.10.2017. 3. The petitioner filed its reply on 21.08.2021 and again on 25.08.2021 reiterating that the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained in view of delay. However, the respondent authority had passed the impugned order on 02.09.2021 by placing reliance upon Section 12 (2)B of the Act which reads as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that proceedings were initiated within reasonable time and it was in view of the fact that the petitioner had not responded that there was delay and therefore the petitioner cannot blame the respondent authority for the delay. 8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is trite law that wherever limitation has not been prescribed for taking any action or passing any orders, it has been consistently held that action ought to be taken or orders ought to be passed within a reasonable time. 10. It may be relevant to note that this Court had held that though the issuance of notice was within the period of limitation, however if the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of law is also be answered in favour of the appellant." (emphasis supplied) (ii) J.Sheik Parith Vs. Commissioner of Customs and another reported in 2020 (374) E.L.T. 15 (Mad.): "23. In Premier Ltd. v. UOI (W.P. No. 12780 of 2016 dated 13.02.2017), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court considered a challenge to the show cause - cum-demand notice dated 22.07.1991, in response to which personal hearings were fixed only in 1997. The Court held that such delay would vitiate the validity of the notice itself holding at paragraph 9 that the power to issue a show cause notice carries with it the responsibility to adjducate upon it promptly. ...28. In Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2018 (12) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve been sent only on 23.08.1999 and proceedings completed in 2015. Thus even on this score, the time taken for conclusion of proceedings appears inordinately delayed and it thus unacceptable. The impugned orders are quashed." (emphasis supplied) 11. It is thus clear that even if the notice was issued within the prescribed period of limitation, inordinate/unreasonable delay in completing the proceedings would vitiate the same. In the present case, there is no explanation as to why it has taken more than 16 years after the issuance of the first notice on 12.11.2004 to issue the hearing notice on 08.07.2021 while proceeding to pass the impugned order on 02.09.2021 after almost 16 years from the date of deemed assessment. This Court in th....