Rdc Concrete India Ltd And ANR v. Union Of India Thr Secretary And ORS
2024:BHC-AS:49579-DB Pradnya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7906 OF 2024 RDC Concrete India Limited and anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and ors.
...Respondents
______________________________________________________ Mr Sanjeev Nair, a/w Ms Dhruvi Shah, i/b. Lumiere Law Partners, for the Petitioners.
Mr Jitendra B. Mishra, a/w Ms Sangeeta Yadav, for the Respondents.
______________________________________________________
CORAM
M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED:
17 December 2024 PC:- 1.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.
This Petition challenges show cause notices dated 2 May 2008 and 22 September 2009 culminating into order in original dated 31 January 2024 along with corrigendum dated 9 February 2024. The delay in adjudication of the show cause notices is approximately 15 years. The reason given for the delay as recorded in the order in original is that the show cause notices were transferred to the call book on account of similar issue being pending before the Supreme Court. However, it is admitted position that this transfer of show cause notices to the call book was never informed or
intimated to the Petitioners. On similar issue where there has been no intimation of transfer to the call book, this Court have not accepted justification for delay in adjudication of the show cause notice.
3.
Mr Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondents states that the master circular issued in 2017 mandated intimating the Petitioners of the show cause notices being transferred to the call book and since there was no such requirement prior to 2017, it was not obligatory on them to inform the Petitioners. In our view this may not be the correct approach. Even in the absence of any circular, the fact that the show cause notice is not being adjudicated on account of transfer to the call book same ought to have been informed to the Petitioners by following the principle of natural justice. The master circular 2017 only clarify this position and therefore, even prior to 2017 we have observed in various cases referred to above that it was incumbent upon the Respondents to have intimated the Petitioners. Therefore, this contention of the Respondents is rejected. This very contention was expressly rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Raymond Ltd. v. Union of India1.
4.
Following the decisions in Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise and another2, Bhagwandas S. Tolani vs. B. C. Aggarwal and others3, Cambata Indus Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Dir. of Enforcement, Mumbai4, Shirish Harshavadan Shah vs. Deputy 1 2019 (368) E.L.T. 481 (Bom.) 2 2023(10) Centax 38 (Bom.) 3 1983 (12) E.L.T. 44 (Bom.) 4 2010 (254) ELT 269 (Bom.)
Director, E.D., Mumbai5, Hindustan Lever Limited vs. Union of India6, Premier Ltd. vs. Union of India7, Union of India vs. Premier Ltd.8, Raymond Ltd. vs. Union of India9, Parle International Limited vs. Union of India and others10, Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others11, Reliance Transport & Travel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India12, Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others13, ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India14, Union of India and others vs. ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd.15, Beico Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others16, Eastern Agencies Aromatics (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India and others17, Cma-Cgm Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Union of India18, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs.
Union of India and others19, Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of CGST and CX20, 5 2010 (254) E.L.T. 259 (Bom.) 6 2011 (24) S.T.R. 97 (Bom.) 7 2017 (354) E.L.T. 365 (Bom.) 8 2018 (360) E.L.T. A181 (S.C.) 9 2019 (368) E.L.T. 481 (Bom.) 10 2020 (11) TMI 842 (Bom.) 11 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.) 12 2022 (62) G.S.T.L. 33 (Bom.) 13 2022 (380) E.L.T. 244 (Bom.)
Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India21, Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd vs. Union of India22, EPL Ltd vs. Union of India and others23, Shreenathji Logistics vs. Union of India and others24, Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P.25, Dharampal Lalchand Chug vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Nashik26, Rachana Garments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs27, Lanvin Synthetics Private Limited vs. Union of India28, Harkaran Dass Vedpal vs. Union of India29, ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX Mumbai30, UPL Limited vs. The Union of India and others31, Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad vs. The Union of India and others32, Bhushan Vora vs. The Union of India and others33, The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. vs. The Union of India34, Paresh H Mehta vs. Union of India35, M/s.
Esjaypee Impex Pvt Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others36 and Pradeep Subhashchandra Mehta vs. The 21 2018 (12) GSTL 290 (Bom.) 22 2022 (9) TMI 318 (Bom) 23 2023 (9) TMI 15 (Bom) 24 2022 (11) TMI 709 (Bom) 25 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) 26 2015 (323) E.L.T. 753 (Bom.) 27 2022 (8) TMI 345 (Bom.) 28 2015 (322) ELT 429 (Bom) 29 2019 (368) E.L.T.
Union of India and others37, we quash and set aside the order in original dated 31 January 2024 along with corrigendum dated 9 February 2024.
5.
Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) 37 2024 (11) TMI 910 (Bom) Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 18/12/2024 10:49:15