No justification for not adjudicating a notice for more than 13 years after issuance: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court in the case Nanu Ram Goyal Versus Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, Delhi observed and has held that there being no justification for not adjudicating the notice for more than thirteen years after the issuance of notice.
The bench headed by Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan in the case observed and has stated that the larger public interest requires that the Revenue Department and its said official in order to expeditiously adjudicate the show cause notice and also the same is to be adjudicated within a reasonable time period.
In the present case, the petitioner or assessee being a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of executing civil construction works. Thus, it has been claimed by the petitioner in the said case that it executed the contracts for civil works awarded by authorities, institutions, and other entities, which includes the Central Government and the State Governments. Thus, the petitioner in the case was then being awarded the contract for the construction of residential flats by the Housing Board of Haryana, Gurugram.
Therefore, it has also been claimed by the petitioner in the plea that the respondents in the case had failed to conclude the proceedings within a reasonable period which being from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. Further, respondent before the court claimed that the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice were being kept in abeyance as the matter was being placed in a call book in terms of the circulars as it is issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, CBEC from time to time.
In the said case, the issued raised before the court was weather the respondents can continue the proceedings for adjudication of the show cause notice after the lapse of almost thirteen years.
The court observed that it has been stated that as per Section 73 of the Act, as in force at the material time, the same did not stipulate any time period. Therefore, by virtue of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, sub-section (4B) was being introduced in Section
73 of the Act, wherein it is stated that where it being possible to pass an order, the Central Excise Officer would also determine the amount of service tax which being within a period of one year in respect of cases which fall under the proviso as stated to sub-section (1) or the proviso stated to sub-section (4A), and also within a period of six months from the date of notice in cases which fall under Section 73(1) of the Act.
Further, it has been noted by the court that the question which being as to validity of the call book is pending for consideration before the Supreme Court in the batch of matters. Therefore, the court then held that the said proceedings which being pursuant to the show cause notice are inordinately delayed and it is now being impermissible for the respondents in order to continue them. Accordingly, the court stated that the respondents are interdicted from taking any action or continuing any proceedings pursuant to the issuance of impugned show cause notice.