Gmr Airport Infrastructure Limited (Earlier Known As Gmr Infrastructure Limited) vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the prolonged retention of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) in the 'call book' and their subsequent revival, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in *Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs*, is not permissible. The Court found that such practice, without proper justification and adherence to established principles, can indeed prejudice the assessee and violate the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that while the call book mechanism is intended for administrative convenience, its application must not lead to undue delays or prejudice the rights of the assessees. The Court noted that the Board's instructions regarding the call book are subject to judicial scrutiny and must be interpreted in a manner that upholds fairness. The Court did not specifically address the merits of each individual SCN but focused on the procedural impropriety of their prolonged retention in the call book. The Court's reasoning emphasizes that the purpose of adjudication is to arrive at a just conclusion, which is undermined by arbitrary procedural delays. The ratio decidendi is that the call book mechanism cannot be used to indefinitely postpone adjudication proceedings, and any such action must be demonstrably justified and not prejudicial to the assessee.

Facts

This judgment consolidates multiple writ petitions filed before the Delhi High Court concerning issues related to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Customs law. The petitioners, including various private limited companies and individuals, are challenging actions and orders passed by different revenue authorities, primarily the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Commissioners of Customs. The disputes revolve around the issuance and transfer of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) to the 'call book' by the revenue authorities, and the subsequent adjudication proceedings. The petitioners argue that the prolonged holding of SCNs in the call book, and their subsequent revival, prejudices their defense and violates principles of natural justice. The revenue authorities contend that the call book mechanism is a procedural tool for managing cases and that the SCNs were appropriately handled according to Board instructions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the transfer of Show Cause Notices (SCNs) to the 'call book' and their subsequent revival by the revenue authorities, particularly in light of various Board instructions and Supreme Court rulings like *Canon India Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs*, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and prejudices the petitioners' right to a fair hearing. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of procedural instructions governing the handling of SCNs and the fundamental right to a fair hearing. 2. Whether the prolonged delay in adjudicating SCNs, due to their placement in the call book, is justifiable and does not vitiate the subsequent proceedings. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contend that the repeated transfer of SCNs to the call book and their subsequent revival, often after significant delays, hampers their ability to gather evidence and present a defense. They argue that this practice is arbitrary and defeats the purpose of timely adjudication. They rely on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied and highlight the prejudice caused by the erosion of evidence and memory over time. Revenue's arguments: The revenue authorities argue that the call book is a legitimate administrative mechanism for managing cases, particularly those pending Supreme Court decisions or subject to policy reviews. They assert that the SCNs were transferred and revived in accordance with Board instructions and that such actions do not inherently prejudice the assessees. They may also argue that the petitioners themselves have contributed to delays through their conduct or requests for adjournments.