S. Kushalchand And Company v. Union Of India
2024:BHC-OS:20775-DB Pradnya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1929 OF 2023 Elite Aromas
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and anr.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2446 OF 2024 Bharat Shetty
...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3065 OF 2023 Gupta and Co. Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1977 OF 2023 Pragati Aroma Oil Distillers Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and anr.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 74 OF 2024 S. Kushalchand & Company
...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3457 OF 2023 Global Exim
...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2600 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 20920 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2600 OF 2024 Kejal Mehta
...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2720 OF 2024 AKNI Futuristic Technologies
...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3186 OF 2024 Amit Gupta
...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3716 OF 2024 One World Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and ors.
...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2525 OF 2024 Dipak Spices Export LLP
...Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and ors.
...Respondents
______________________________________________________ Mr Prakash Shah, a/w Mr Jas Sanghavi, Mr Yash Prakash, Ms Smita Thakur i/b. PDS Legal, for the Petitioner in WP/1929/2023, WP/2446/2024, WP/1977/2023, WP/3065/2023, WP/2720/2024, WP/3186/2024, WP/3716/2024.
Mr Prakash Shah, a/w Mr Jas Sanghavi, Mr Durgaprasad Poojari, Mr Vikas Poojary i/b. PDS Legal, for the Petitioner in WP/74/2024, WP/3457/2023.
Mr Anil Balani, a/w Mr Jas Sanghavi, Ms Priyasha Pawar, Mr S. S. Nargolkar i/b. PDS Legal, for the Petitioners in WP/2600/2024.
Mr Jas Sanghavi, a/w Mr Yash Prakash i/b. PDS Legal, for the Petitioner in WP/2525/2024.
Mr J. B. Mishra, a/w Ms Sangeeta Yadav, for the RespondentDRI in WP/3457/2023. Mr J. B. Mishra, a/w Ms Mamta Omle, for Respondent No.2 in WP/2600/2024 and for the Applicant in IAL/20920/2024.
Mr M. P. Sharma, a/w Ms Mamta Omle, for Respondent No.2 in WP/1929/2023, WP/2446/2024, WP/1977/2023, WP/3065/2023, WP/74/2024, WP/3457/2023, WP/2720/2024, WP/3186/2024, WP/3716/2024.
Mr M. P. Sharma, a/w Ms Mamta Omle, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in WP/2525/2024.
______________________________________________________
CORAM
M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED:
17 December 2024 PC :- 1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
By consent since the issue involved is similar in all these Petitions, same are disposed by common order. 3.
In all these matters the issue involved relates to delay in adjudication of the show cause notice. The range of delay is from 9 years to 20 years, most of them 9 years. The common reasons which are given by the Respondents in all these matters is either the show cause notice was transferred to call book or there was a restructuring of the Commissionerate's office and therefore no adjudication could be done within reasonable time. However, there is no material on record to show that the Respondents intimated the show cause notice being transferred to the call book to the Petitioners. It was incumbent upon the Respondents to have intimated the Petitioners that their cases are transferred to the call book. Insofar as the restructuring reason is given, same is general and in any case delay of 9 years - 20 years can't be justified on ground of restructuring.
4.
We, on identical reasons canvassed by the Respondents either of transfer of show cause notice to the call book without intimating the Petitioner or restructuring in the Commissionerate's office, have passed series of orders rejecting such contentions. The lead being in the case of Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Joint Commissioner CGST
and Central Excise and another1. Other cases where such reasons are rejected are : Bhagwandas S. Tolani vs. B. C. Aggarwal and others2, Cambata Indus Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Dir. of Enforcement, Mumbai3, Shirish Harshavadan Shah vs. Deputy Director, E.D., Mumbai4, Hindustan Lever Limited vs. Union of India5, Premier Ltd. vs. Union of India6, Union of India vs. Premier Ltd.7, Raymond Ltd. vs. Union of India8, Parle International Limited vs. Union of India and others9, Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others10, Reliance Transport & Travel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India11, Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others12, ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India13, Union of India and others vs. ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd.14, Beico Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Union of India and others15, Eastern Agencies Aromatics (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India and others16, Cma-Cgm Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India17, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Union of India and others18, Bombay Dyeing and 1 2023(10) Centax 38 (Bom.) 2 1983 (12) E.L.T. 44 (Bom.) 3 2010 (254) ELT 269 (Bom.) 4 2010 (254) E.L.T. 259 (Bom.) 5 2011 (24) S.T.R. 97 (Bom.) 6 2017 (354) E.L.T. 365 (Bom.) 7 2018 (360) E.L.T. A181 (S.C.) 8 2019 (368) E.L.T. 481 (Bom.) 9 2020 (11) TMI 842 (Bom.) 10 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.) 11 2022 (62) G.S.T.L. 33 (Bom.) 12 2022 (380) E.L.T. 244 (Bom.)
Manufacturing Company Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of CGST and CX19, Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India20, Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd vs. Union of India21, EPL Ltd vs. Union of India and others22, Shreenathji Logistics vs. Union of India and others23, Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P.24, Dharampal Lalchand Chug vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Nashik25, Rachana Garments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs26, Lanvin Synthetics Private Limited vs. Union of India27, Harkaran Dass Vedpal vs. Union of India28, ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX Mumbai29, UPL Limited vs. The Union of India and others30, Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad vs. The Union of India and others31, Bhushan Vora vs.
The Union of India and others32, The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. vs. The Union of India33, Paresh H Mehta vs. Union of India34, M/s. Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others35 and Pradeep Subhashchandra Mehta vs. The Union of India and others36. On similar grounds 19 2022 (2) TMI 783 (Bom) 20 2018 (12) GSTL 290 (Bom.) 21 2022 (9) TMI 318 (Bom) 22 2023 (9) TMI 15 (Bom) 23 2022 (11) TMI 709 (Bom) 24 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) 25 2015 (323) E.L.T. 753 (Bom.) 26 2022 (8) TMI 345 (Bom.) 27 2015 (322) ELT 429 (Bom) 28 2019 (368) E.L.T.
this Court and the Coordinate Benches have quashed such notices which are delayed without any justifiable reason. Since the reasons given by the Respondents in the above Petitions are identical to those which were the subject matter of Petitions which are disposed of by various above orders, respectfully following the decision passed by the Coordinate Benches and by this Bench, we quash and set aside the show cause notice and order in original on the ground of nonjustification for delay in adjudication. 5.
In view of above the rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Pending Interim Applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/12/2024 10:27:46