Facts of the Case
The Petitioner, Roots Education Pvt. Ltd., engaged in
providing coaching services, was registered under Service Tax for taxable
services including “Commercial Coaching or Training Service” and “Franchisee
Service”.
Between 2013 and 2018, multiple Show Cause Notices
(SCNs) were issued alleging non-payment of service tax on study material
supplied by the Petitioner. The demands covered financial years from 2007–08
to June 2017.
Despite replies being filed promptly and even personal
hearings being conducted (notably in December 2016), the adjudication was
completed only in June 2024, resulting in confirmation of service tax
demands, interest, and penalties.
The Petitioner challenged:
- Order-in-Original
dated 27.06.2024
- Order-in-Appeal
dated 31.01.2025
- Underlying
SCNs
on the ground of inordinate delay and violation of natural justice.
Issues Involved
- Whether
inordinate delay (6–11 years) in adjudication of SCNs renders the
proceedings invalid.
- Whether
the phrase “where it is possible to do so” under Section 73(4B)
of the Finance Act, 1994 allows indefinite delay.
- Whether such delay violates principles of natural justice and constitutional fairness.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
adjudication delay of 7 to 12 years is arbitrary and
unconstitutional.
- Section
73(4B) prescribes adjudication within 6 months / 1 year, and such
timelines cannot be ignored.
- Delay
deprived the Petitioner of a fair opportunity to defend.
- The
department failed to provide any valid or justified reason for
delay.
- Reliance
placed on precedents:
- Vos
Technologies India (P) Ltd. v. Director General
- National
Building Construction Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
- Commissioner vs Shree Baba Exports
Respondent’s Arguments
- Delay
occurred due to:
- Complexity
of tax adjudication
- COVID-19
pandemic disruptions
- Section
73(4B) uses the phrase “where it is possible to do so”, indicating
flexibility and no strict limitation.
- No
statutory bar exists preventing adjudication after delay.
- Reliance
on Supreme Court rulings:
- CCE
vs Bhagsons Paint Industry (India)
- Commissioner vs Swati Menthol & Allied Chemicals Ltd.
Court’s Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court held:
- Inordinate
and unexplained delay in adjudication is impermissible.
- The
phrase “where it is possible to do so” does not grant unlimited
discretion or justify administrative lethargy.
- Authorities
must demonstrate “insurmountable circumstances” to justify delay —
which was absent in this case.
- Keeping
proceedings pending for years together violates fairness and natural
justice.
- Prior
judgments (especially Vos Technologies) clearly establish that:
- Adjudication
must be completed within a reasonable period
- Delay
alone can be a ground to quash proceedings
Final Order:
- SCNs,
OIO, and OIA were quashed and set aside.
- Petition allowed in favour of the assessee.
Important Clarification
- The
Court clarified that:
- The
expression “where it is possible to do so” ≠ unlimited time
- It
applies only in cases of genuine impossibility or exceptional
circumstances
- Administrative
delay, workload, or procedural inefficiencies cannot justify prolonged
adjudication
- Authorities are under a legal obligation to act with reasonable expedition
Sections Involved
- Section
73(4B), Finance Act, 1994 – Time limit for
adjudication of service tax notices
- Section
65 & 65(105), Finance Act, 1994 – Taxable services
definitions
- Principles
of Natural Justice
- Related
references:
- Section
28, Customs Act, 1962
- Section 73 & 74, CGST Act, 2017
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/68022042025CW40842025_101357.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment