Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by Vos Technologies Private Limited (petitioner) seeking to quash the show cause notices (SCNs) and pending adjudication proceedings arising out of the , the and the due to failure on the part of the respondents to conclude adjudication within a reasonable period of time and inordinately delaying the same for decades together would constitute a sufficient ground to annul those proceedings. A division bench of Yashwant Mishra and Ravinder Dudeja, JJ., quashed the show cause notices because the respondents have clearly failed to establish the existence of an insurmountable constraint which operated, and which could be acknowledged in law as impeding their power to conclude pending adjudications.
The present petitions arise from an alleged failure by the customs authorities to adhere to statutory timelines for adjudication proceedings under the . The petitioners are individuals and entities aggrieved by the inordinate delays in the conclusion of proceedings initiated against them through show cause notices (SCNs). The delays, often spanning several years or even decades, have primarily been attributed to the repeated and unjustified transfer of cases to the “call book.” The call book mechanism is a procedural tool meant to defer cases where adjudication is contingent upon the resolution of legal or procedural questions by higher forums or other authorities. However, in many instances cited by the petitioners, cases were transferred to the call book without fulfilling the necessary conditions, resulting in prolonged and unexplained delays.
The issue gained prominence after the 2018 amendments to Section of the , which introduced a statutory mandate for the conclusion of adjudication within strict timelines. These amendments provided that if adjudication is not completed within the prescribed period, the SCNs would lapse and be deemed non-est. Despite this legislative mandate, the petitioners highlight cases of gross delay, such as SCNs issued in 2006 that remain unresolved even in 2024. Frustrated by the lack of action, the petitioners have approached the court, arguing that such delays violate their right to a fair and timely adjudication process, which is an essential component of due process. They also allege prejudice resulting from prolonged uncertainty and the chilling effect on their businesses and personal lives. Thus, the petitions were filed seeking directions to quash the delayed proceedings and enforce strict compliance with statutory timelines.
The Court examined amendments by virtue of and their implications, particularly Section 28(9) of Customs Act and its provisos. While the first proviso allowed extensions for adjudication under exceptional circumstances, the second proviso deemed proceedings terminated if not concluded within the extended period.
The Court noted that the respondents are bound and obliged in law to endeavour to conclude adjudication with due expedition. The matters which have the potential of casting financial liabilities or penal consequences cannot be kept pending for years and decades together. A statute enabling an authority to conclude proceedings within a stipulated period “where it is possible to do so” cannot be countenanced as a license to keep matters unresolved for years. The flexibility which the statute confers is not liable to be construed as sanctioning lethargy or indolence. Ultimately it is incumbent upon the authority to establish that it was genuinely hindered and impeded in resolving the dispute with reasonable speed and dispatch. A statutory authority when faced with such a challenge would be obligated to prove that it was either impracticable to proceed or it was constricted by factors beyond its control which prevented it from moving with reasonable expedition. This principle would apply equally to cases falling either under the Customs Act, the 1994 Act or the CGST Act.
The Court observed that in the present case, the respondents have clearly failed to establish the existence of an insurmountable constraint which operated, and which could be acknowledged in law as impeding their power to conclude pending adjudications. In fact, and to the contrary, the frequent placement of matters in the call book, the retrieval of matters therefrom and transfer all over again not only defies logic it is also demonstrative of due application of mind quite apart from the said procedure having been found by us to be contrary to the procedure contemplated by Section 28.
The Court stated that the respondents have failed to abide by the directives of the Board itself which had contemplated affected parties being placed on notice, a periodic review being undertaken and the proceedings having been lingered unnecessarily with no plausible explanation. The inaction and the state of inertia which prevailed lead to the inevitable conclusion that the respondents clearly failed to discharge their obligation within a reasonable time. The issuance of innumerable notices would also not absolve the respondents of their statutory obligation to proceed with promptitude bearing in mind the overarching obligation of ensuring that disputes are resolved in a timely manner and not permitted to fester. Insofar as the assertion of the assessees’ seeking repeated adjournments or failing to cooperate in the proceedings, it may only be noted that nothing prevented the respondents from proceeding ex-parte or refusing to reject such requests if considered lacking in bona fides.
The Court concluded that the respondents failed to act in accord with the legislative interventions which were intended to empower them to pursue further proceedings and take the adjudicatory process to its logical conclusion. Thus, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed the impugned show cause notices.
[Vos Technologies Private Limited v Principal Additional Director General, W.P.(C) 4831/2021, decided on 10-12-2024]
Judgment by: Justice Yashwant Mishra
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, and Ms. Poojan Malhotra, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. St. Counsel with Ms. Suhani and Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advocates for respondents
The post appeared first on .