ST - Delay in passing adjudication order is against public interest - Sitting on files is not conducive to interest of economy - Remedial measures must be taken including calling for explanation from officers: HC
By TIOL News Service
MUMBAI, AUG 19, 2015: A SCN seeking recovery of Service tax for the period 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 was issued to the petitioner on 23.01.2009.
A reply to this SCN was filed on 21.6.2010.
After more than two years, on 1.8.2012, a personal hearing was given and concluded on the same date.
Consequently, an order-in-original came to be passed on 27.06.2014 i.e. after a period of almost 22 months.
Against this order, the petitioner is before the High Court.
The petitioner relied upon a series of circulars issued by the CBEC emphasizing that the Law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar - 2002-TIOL-659-SC-MISC would apply inasmuch as there should not be any unreasonable delay in passing adjudication order as the same hampers the exercise of right of appeal &causes difficulties and obstacles in realising public revenue expeditiously.
The High Court observed that prima facie there appeared to be no explanation for the delay and that even if there was any restructuring and reorganizing of the Department of Service Tax and the Commissionerate thereof, there was no reason why such inordinate delay should occur.
Noting that ordinarily the High Court would have disposed of the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order on this ground alone and sent the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh hearing, in the present case this course of action is deferred as the Bench was worried and equally anxious about the number of files and matters which are pending in the Commissionerate.
The High Court also added -
+ If the delay has not been explained and the Revenue has to accept the adverse verdict of a Court of Law only on this ground, then, remedial measures must be initiated including calling for an explanation from the concerned officers and thereafter taking action against them in accordance with law.
+ Eventually all Commissioners must realise that delay in proceedings and passing of orders would be contrary to public interest. They are conferred with powers to determine and adjudicate the demands raised only in a hope that they take steps expeditiously and recover outstanding amount from the defaulters, if any.
+ Hence, sitting on files and for months together and sometimes beyond the financial year is, thus, not conducive to the interest of nation's economy. The trust and faith reposed in them is also then betrayed.
+ If no action is taken against such Officers and they are allowed to go scot free, then, apart from the Revenue getting involved in litigation in higher Courts and Tribunal, others would be encouraged.
While concluding, the High Court issued the following directions -
+ We would like a comprehensive affidavit being filed by the Chief Commissioner of Service Tax and measures that he proposes to take or has already taken. He shall, then, disclose number of files and matters pending and serially. It should not happen that one who comes to Court, challenges the adverse order only on the ground of delay, the High Court, then, directs that the matter be taken and decided out of turn. Therefore, we would like complete data and figures to be placed on record. We would also like the Commissioner to enlighten us as to how much time would be taken at the end of his Commissionerate to dispose of pending cases.
The matter is to be listed on 31.8.2015.
(See 2015-TIOL-1888-HC-MUM-ST)
