Pradeep Subhashchandra Mehta vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the case involved inordinate and unexplained delay that caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner, violating the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the Respondents themselves admitted in their affidavit that the Petitioner was not responsible for the delay and attributed it to frequent changes in adjudicating officers. Following its own previous decisions in similar circumstances, such as Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise & Anr., Paresh H. Mehta vs. The Union of India, and M/s. Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Union of India & Ors., the Court quashed and set aside the impugned show-cause notice dated 28 March 2013. The Respondents were restrained from taking any further steps or proceedings in furtherance of the said notice. The rule was made absolute without any order as to costs.

Facts

The Petitioner, Pradeep Subhashchandra Mehta, challenged a show-cause notice dated 28 March 2013 and the subsequent adjudication order issued by Respondent No.2. The Petitioner sought copies of illegible documents between April and September 2013, filing an interim reply on 6 September 2013. The Respondents' affidavit indicated numerous personal hearings scheduled between October 2014 and May 2023, with the Petitioner attending most. The Respondents admitted in their affidavit that the Petitioner was not responsible for the delay, attributing it to frequent changes in adjudicating officers and the case being handed over multiple times. The Respondents sought a four-month extension to complete adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inordinate and unexplained delay in adjudicating the show-cause notice dated 28 March 2013, issued by Respondent No.2, violates the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting quashing of the notice and proceedings. Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner contended that the delay was inordinate and unexplained, causing serious prejudice and violating the principles of natural justice. They relied on previous decisions of the Court in similar circumstances. Respondents' arguments: The Respondents, through their counsel Ms. Punde, argued that adjournments were occasionally granted to accommodate co-noticees. They submitted that the reasons for delay, as stated in their affidavit (frequent changes in officers and case handovers), constituted sufficient cause. They also claimed the delay was due to their anxiety to avoid charges of failure of natural justice. They relied on their affidavit and the submissions made by their counsel.