17.07.2023.
PB
Sl. No.7.
WPA 14414 of 2023
L. Madanlal (Aluminium) Limited
Vs
The Additional Commissioner of
Central Tax, CGST, Howrah
commissionerate & Ors.
Mr. Arnab Chakraborty,
Mr. Aniket Chaudhury.
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Kaushik Dey,
Mr. Abhradip Maity.
.....for the respondents.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.
By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned adjudication order in original dated 12th April, 2023, which has been passed on the basis of a proceeding initiated by issuing a show-cause notice issued on 21st April, 2009 that is almost 14 years back and the explanation of the department for such delay as appears in the impugned order is solely on technical ground which, prima facie, appears to this Court not at all a proper explanation and such action of the respondent authority in finalising an adjudication after a lapse of 14 years is unlawful and arbitrary and not sustainable in law. 2 Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention submits that the impugned order in original is not sustainable in law and has relied on three decisions of (i) ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in (2022) 1 Centax 32 (Bcom.), ii) Meghmani Organics Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2019 (368) E.L.T. 433 (Guj.) and Tablets (India) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Chennai reported in 2018 (11) GSTL 162 (Mad.).
Mr. Dey, learned advocate appearing for the respondents could not convince this Court from his argument on the aforesaid allegation of the petitioner regarding finalization of an adjudication after a lapse of 14 years from the date of show-cause notice by sitting over the show-cause notice since 2009 and all on a sudden issuing notice hearing in the aforesaid impugned adjudication proceeding on 16th March, 2023.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the parties and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments cited by learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case of the interim order and I am also of the view that respondents should be given an 3 opportunity to file affidavit in opposition to meet the allegation of the petitioner.
Let the respondents file affidavit in opposition within four weeks; petitioner to file reply thereto, if any, within two weeks thereafter.
List the matter for final hearing in the monthly list of November, 2023.
There will be stay of the impugned adjudication order dated 12th April, 2023 till the disposal of this writ petition.
( Md. Nizamuddin, J.)