Allowed

Britt Worldwide India Private Limited v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Dept of Revenue and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Jan 2016WP/6941/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition where the impugned adjudication order was quashed due to an unreasonable and unexplained 17-month delay after the personal hearing. The court directed fresh adjudication within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed; the show cause notice shall be adjudicated afresh with a fresh order to be passed within 30 days of the personal hearing.

Britt Worldwide India Private Limited… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

47-WP6941-14.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6941 OF 2014

¶4

Britt Worldwide India Private Limited…Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry …Respondents
of Finance Department of Revenue

¶5

Mr. Bhrat Raichandani, with Mr. Mahesh Raichandani, i/b Mr.
Vaibhav P. Patankar, for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mr. Vijay Kantharia, with Ms. Anamika Malhotra, for the
Respondents.

¶7

CORAM:S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ.
DATED:11th January 2016

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1.On this Petition challenging the order dated 23rd January
2014, Mr. Raichandani raised only one contention and that is that
the impugned order recites that the notice to show cause was issued
to the Petitioner and that show cause notice dated 12th October
2010 was taken up for adjudication. After the personal hearing was
over, an order ought to have been passed within a reasonable time.
However, the impugned order has been passed 17 months after the
personal hearing was over. This unreasonable and unexplained
delay itself vitiates the conclusion reached in the impugned order.

¶10

1 of 3

¶11

47-WP6941-14.DOC

¶12

2.Upon such a contention being raised and specifically in the
Petition so also earlier, we granted time to Mr. Kantharia appearing
for the Respondents to take instructions. Mr. Kantharia has placed
before us an Affidavit of one Mr. R. Sekhar, holding charge as the
Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai. Upon perusal
of the records, he has, in his Affidavit, explained as to how the delay
occurred. It is not disputed by him that there is indeed a long delay
in passing the impugned order after the conclusion of personal
hearing. The administrative and other difficulties have been pointed
out. Mr. Kantharia states that he has personally spoken to the
Commissioner and who has assured him and thereafter to convey
the Court that all attempts would be made to dispose of the pending
cases expeditiously.

¶13

3.In view of this affidavit and the stand taken by the
Commissioner, we set aside the impugned order only on the ground
of delay and which is long, unreasonable and unexplained in passing
the adjudication order.

¶14

4.The impugned order dated 23rd January 2014 is, therefore,
quashed and set aside. The show cause notice shall be adjudicated
afresh and on appearance of the Petitioner a fresh order would be
passed by the Adjudicating Authority within a period of 30 days
from the date of conclusion of personal hearing.

¶15

5.The Petitioner shall appear before the Adjudicating
Authority at 10.30 a.m. on 21st January 2016. We direct the
Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order uninfluenced by the
earlier conclusion.

¶16

2 of 3

¶17

47-WP6941-14.DOC

¶18

6.The Writ Petition is allowed in these terms with no order as
to costs.

¶19

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶20

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶21

3 of 3

Britt Worldwide India Private Limited v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Dept of Revenue and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Britt Worldwide India Private Limited v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Dept of Revenue and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Suresh Chandra Gupta and 3 Ors. Vs Union of India and 9 Ors.

Mr.Devendra S Mallah Vs the Slum Rehabiliation Authority and 5 Ors.

Ramesh Nishad Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 5 Ors.

Mr. Amol Arun Katkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Nayasa Exports Pvt. Ltd, through Director, Shri. Imran Mithwani and Ors. Vs the Union of India, through Central Govt. Advocates, Dedicated Legal Cell (Customs) and Ors.

Afloat Textile (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Anr.