Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader And Ors

2026:BHC-AS:20175-DB
9-WP [email protected]
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
SAGAR
VARTAK
Date:
2026.04.28
13:15:26
+0530
PRAJAKTA
SAGAR
VARTAK
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 637 OF 2024
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 638 OF 2024
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 639 OF 2024
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Ms. Padmavati Patil with Mr. Kiran Chavan i/b. Cenex Legal LLP for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Shruti Vyas, Addl. G. P. with Mr. Aditya Deolekar, AGP for the State.
Mr. Sandeep Ghaterao, for Respondent/NMMC.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 22 APRIL 2026.
Oral Judgment (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.) :-
Writ Petition No. 637 of 2024
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the
parties, heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for the following substantive reliefs:-
Page 1 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::

9-WP [email protected]
“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, calling for
the records of the case and after going into the question of legality and
propriety thereof, be pleased to hold that the Assessment Order dated
21.08.2023 passed by the Cess Officer (Respondent No.3) after a lapse
of three years from the end of the year, i.e. on or before 31.03.2014, is
barred by limitation as per Rule 25(5) of the Cess Rules;

(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, calling for
the records of the case and after going into the question of legality and
propriety thereof, be pleased to hold that the Assessment Order dated
21.08.2023 passed by the Cess Officer (Respondent No.3) after a lapse
of ten years from the date of issue of notice in Form-H is barred by
limitation as has been held by this Hon'ble Court in the case Siemens
Limited;
(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, calling for
the records of the case and after going into the question of legality and
propriety thereof, be pleased to hold that the Cess liability was assessed
erroneously, without considering and appreciating various evidences like
monthly Returns, annual statement, etc. and be pleased to quash and set
aside the impugned Assessment Order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the
Cess Officer (Respondent No.3);
d) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, calling for
the records of the case and after going into the question of legality and
propriety thereof, be pleased to direct the Cess Officer (Respondent
No.3) to reassess the Cess dues, if any, after considering and adjusting
the Cess liability on the quantum of petroleum products exported out of
NMMC area;
(e) that, as an alternative, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, calling for the records of the case and after going into the question
of legality and propriety thereof, be pleased to permit the Petitioner to
file an appeal under Section 406 of MMC Act, within a reasonable time,
and direct the Appellate Authority to hear and decide such appeal
without insistence for deposit of any tax confirmed, under Section
406(8) of MMC Act;
(f) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus
or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
order or direction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, calling for
the records of the case and after going into the question of legality and
propriety thereof, be pleased to direct the Cess Officer (Respondent
No.3) not to take any recovery proceedings till final disposal of this
Petition by this Hon'ble Court.”
Page 2 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::

9-WP [email protected]

3. The primary contention of the petitioner is on the delayed adjudication of
the show cause notice, which resulted in the passing of the impugned assessment
order dated 21 August 2023. At the outset, it is necessary to note that a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court (A.S. Chandurkar, J. (as His Lordship then was) and
Mr. M. W. Chandwani, J.) in Siemens Limited V/s. The State of Maharashtra &
Ors. in Writ Petition No. 3124 of 2020, has already decided the issue raised by
the petitioner in the present petition by judgment dated 03 May 2023, against the
very same respondent-Municipal Corporation. Such position was pointed out to
the Court when both the proceedings were listed before a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, of which one of us (G. S. Kulkarni, J.) was a member, on 04 March
2024, when the following order was passed:-
“ The Petitioner has placed on record a decision of the Co-
ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Siemens Limited v/s. State of
Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 3124 of 2020) decided on 3rd May,
2023 along with other batch of Petitions.
2 The learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent- NMMC would
submit that the relief as sought in the present Petitions would clearly
stand covered by the said decision.
3 Mr. Sakhare would contend that Review Petition has been filed
and the same would be taken up by the Review Bench on 12th March,
2024.
th
4 Stand over to 18 March, 2024 – HOB.”

4. We find from the subsequent orders that the proceedings were adjourned
on the ground that a review petition had been filed by the respondent-Navi
Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short, “Corporation”), seeking review of the
judgment and order passed in Siemens Limited (supra). Learned counsel for the
parties have placed before the Court the order dated 12 February 2026 passed by
Page 3 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::

9-WP [email protected]
a co-ordinate Bench of this Court (B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.)

on Review Petition No. 23 of 2024, whereby the review petition was considered
on merits and rejected. Thus, the decision in Siemens Limited (supra) is fully
binding on the respondent-Corporation, and the contention that the present
petition should not be proceeded with on the ground that a review petition is
pending is not tenable. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for the
parties.
5. The facts lie in a narrow compass:- The petitioner-Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking, cleared petroleum products from
its refinery to the Vashi Terminal, which is located within the municipal
jurisdiction of the respondent-corporation, through a pipeline. During the period
from April 2010 to March 2011, the petitioner filed monthly returns as well as an
annual statement, providing all requisite details, including the quantity and value
of goods exported outside the municipal area, on which 90% of the cess was not
payable.
6. On such backdrop, on 24 August 2011, a notice (Form – H), being a show
cause notice, was issued to the petitioner by the Cess Officer, calling for certain
documents and proposing to complete the assessment on a best judgment basis.
The petitioner responded to the said notice vide letter dated 09 September 2011,
submitting the annual statement along with all requisite details. However, for a
period of almost nine years thereafter, no further action was taken by the Cess
Officer. It was only on 18 July 2023 that the Cess Officer once again requested
the petitioner to submit certain documents and informed that a personal hearing
Page 4 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::

9-WP [email protected]
would be granted. The petitioner responded by seeking an extension of time,

contending that there had already been an inordinate delay and that as per the
petitioner, all the requirements had been duly complied with.
7. It is on such backdrop, it appears that the Cess Officer proceeded to pass
the impugned assessment order (Form-I) dated 21 August 2023. According to
the petitioner, the said order was issued without considering the quantum/value
of goods exported outside the municipal jurisdiction, in respect of which 90% of
the cess was not payable, in regard to which the monthly returns were furnished
along with annual statement. Also on the even date, the Cess Officer also issued a
Demand Notice (Form-J), calling upon the petitioner to pay the erroneously
confirmed and exorbitant cess liability.
8. In these circumstances, the present petition is filed inter alia contending
that under sub-rules (5) and (7) of Rule 25 of the Cess Rules, it was mandatory
for the Commissioner to complete the assessment within three years from the end
of the year in which the relevant period occurred. It is submitted that the
impugned assessment order for the financial year 2010-11 is barred by limitation.
In support of this contention, Ms. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, has
drawn our attention to the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Siemens Ltd. (supra).
9. In Siemens Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench, considering the purport of
Rule 25 (3) and (4) of the Cess Rules 1996, held that, it could not have been
intended that the assessment proceedings remain pending for a period of 10 years
Page 5 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::

9-WP [email protected]
from the date of issuance of the initial notice in Form-H. It was held that the

process of assessment was accordingly liable to be quashed on the ground of
unreasonableness and failure to complete the assessment for no justifiable reason.
The relevant observations in that regard are required to be noted which read
thus:-
“ 15. We may note that in a recent decision in ATA Freight Line (I)
Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others [2022(3) BCR 20] after
considering various earlier decisions on the question of belated
adjudication of a show cause notice, the Division Bench held that non-
adjudication of the show cause notice for a period of about ten years
resulted in causing prejudice to the said petitioners. The Court
proceeded to quash the said show cause notices.
16. The communication dated 07.01.2020 issued by the Assessing
Authority of the Municipal Corporation reveals that it was of the view
that the period of three years mentioned in Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996
was for initiation of the assessment proceedings and not for passing the
assessment order. Even accepting this position that the period of three
years is for initiation of the assessment proceedings and the present
assessment proceedings for each year has commenced within the
prescribed time by issuance of notice in Form-H, the same cannot mean
that since no period of limitation is prescribed for completing the
assessment, the same can be completed at any point of time. The
assessment proceedings are required to be completed within a reasonable
time keeping in view the spirit of Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996 when
read as a whole. It was also urged on behalf of the Municipal
Corporation that on account of the pandemic situation the assessment
proceedings could not be completed. It is to be noted that even if the
period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is excluded from consideration
the same would not make much difference for the reason that the
reminder in Form-H was given on 24.09.2019 and nothing precluded
the Municipal Corporation from completing the assessment till the onset
of the pandemic situation. Another reason orally put forth by the
Municipal Corporation is the pendency of the proceedings with regard
to the demand for cess under Rule 35(1) of the Rules of 1996 as well as
challenge to Rule 41 of the Rules of 1996, Writ Petition No. 8506 of
2016 alongwith other writ petitions [M/s Super Label Manufacturing
Co. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others]. The said writ petition
came to be dismissed on 29.07.2016 by the Division Bench. The
aforesaid decision was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and while granting leave on 06.02.2017 it was directed that the
Municipal Corporation would not take any coercive steps against the
Members of the Small Scale Entrepreneurs Association for recovery of
any interest or penalty under Rule 41 of the Rules of 1996. The
pendency of these proceedings is hardly relevant so as to prevent the
Commissioner from completing the process of assessment. Rule 41 of
the Rules of 996 pertains to recovery of interest or penalty which is a
stage subsequent to completion of assessment. Though such justification
for non-completion of the assessment has not been put forward in the
Page 6 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::

9-WP [email protected]
reply filed by the Municipal Corporation, since it was orally put forth as
a justification for pendency of the assessment, we have considered the
said submission.

17. We thus find from the aforesaid that it is necessary for the
Municipal Commissioner to complete the assessment under Rule 25(3)
of the Rules of 1996 either on the date specified in the notice issued in
Form-H or as soon as may be thereafter on the basis of evidence
produced by a registered dealer. On failure of a registered dealer to
comply with the terms of notice issued under Rule 25(3) of the Rules of
1996, the Commissioner has to assess to the best of his judgment the
amount of cess due under Rule 25(4) of the Rules of 1996. Since
assessment has to be undertaken at any time within three years from the
end of the year in which the relevant period occurs as per Rule 25(5) of
the Rules of 1996 if a dealer does not furnish any returns or on failure to
apply for registration under Rule 25(7) of the Rules of 1996, it becomes
clear that though there is no outer period fixed for completing such
assessment, the same has to be completed within reasonable period. In
the facts of the present case, the assessment has not been completed for a
period of almost ten years from issuance of the initial notice in Form-H.
The completion of assessment proceedings having been unnecessarily
delayed by the Municipal Commissioner and there being no basis to
hold that the Corporation is required to wait endlessly for the dealer to
produce further documents despite having produced such documents on
which it wanted to rely, it is held in the facts of the present case that
failure to complete the assessment for a period of more than ten years
from issuing the initial notice in Form- H amounts to continuing the
assessment for an unreasonable period thus rendering such assessment
liable to be quashed.
18. It is also to be noted that the reminder in Form-H dated
24.09.2019 issued to the dealer in all the writ petitions required the
dealer to appear before the Local Body Tax Officer for the purposes of
assessment under Rule 33 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations
(Local Body Tax) Rules. It is to be noted that the Dealer had filed
returns under Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1996. The demand of cess was
in view of the provisions of Section 152A of the Act of 1949. Entire
Chapter XIA of the Act of 1996 with regard to the provisions that
related to levy, calculation and recovery of cess in lieu of Octroi came to
be deleted by Maharashtra XLII of 2017. This deletion took effect from
01.07.2017. Instead of assessing the cess in terms of Rule 25 of the Rules
of 1996 the Municipal Corporation through its Local Body Tax officer
sought to invoke Rule 33 of the Local Body Tax Rules. Issuance of the
said reminder on 24.09.2019 thus indicates non-application of mind to
the relevant facts inasmuch as what was under consideration was the
assessment of cess and not local body tax. The dealer having filed return
under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996, the assessment thereof was liable to
be completed under the Rules of 1996. Recourse to the Local Body Tax
Rules was totally unjustified. While it is true that quoting a wrong
provision of law would not in a given case vitiate the proceedings if the
Authority issuing the notice otherwise had authority to do so, the same
however would clearly indicate absence of due application of mind to
the material facts that were available on record. The aforesaid would thus
indicate that even while issuing the reminder on 24.09.2019 the
Municipal Corporation was not diligent in the matter and undertook
Page 7 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::

9-WP [email protected]
recourse to Rule 33 of the Local Body Tax Rules instead of Rule 25 of
the Rules of 1996.

19. We thus hold that failure to complete the process of assessment
under Rule 25(3) and (4) of the Rules of 1996 for a period of more than
ten years from the date of issuance of the initial notice in Form-H would
render the process of assessment liable to be quashed on the ground of
unreasonableness and failure to complete the assessment for no
justifiable reason. On that basis the assessment for the period from
01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009, 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, 01.04.2010 to
31.03.2011, 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 has not been completed within
the aforesaid period of ten years which we have found to be reasonable
period for completion of assessment. The Commissioner was not
precluded from completing the assessment either in terms of Rule 25(3)
of the Rules of 1996 by treating the documents produced by the Dealer
as the only documents on which the Dealer relied in support of his
returns or under Rule 25(4) of the Rules of 1996 when the Dealer failed
to submit any further documents pursuant to the notice in Form-H
being issued to him. The period of ten years has been reckoned from the
date of issuing the initial notice in Form-H and these notices have not
been adjudicated even till the hearing of the writ petitions even in the
absence of any order interdicting such adjudication.”
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that, by drawing our
attention to other judgments, including Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint
1
Commissioner CGST and Central Excise , although rendered in the context of
the CGST Act, as well as the decision in UPL Limited. vs. The Union of India in
Writ Petition No. 3063 of 2021decided on 22 August, 2023, a similar view has
been taken. In Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Court, after considering a
catena of judgments and the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court in such
decisions, made certain relevant observations which are required to be noted,
which read thus:-
“18. An inordinate delay is seriously prejudical to the assessee and the
law itself would manifest to weed out any uncertainty on adjudication of a
show cause notice, and that too keeping the same pending for such a long
period itself is not what is conducive.
19. It is well said that time and tide wait for none. It cannot be
overlooked that the pendency of show cause notice not only weighs against
1 (2023) 10 Centax 38 (Bom.)
Page 8 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::

9-WP [email protected]
the legal rights and interest of the assessee, but also, in a given situation, it
may adversely affect the interest of the revenue, if prompt adjudication of
the show cause notice is not undertaken, the reason being a lapse of time
and certainly a long lapse of time is likely to cause irreversible changes
frustrating the whole adjudication.

20. We are also of the clear opinion that a substantial delay and inaction
on the part of the department to adjudicate the show cause notice would
seriously nullify the noticee's rights causing irreparable harm and prejudice
to the noticee. A protracted administrative delay would not only
prejudically affect but also defeat substantive rights of the noticee. In certain
circumstances, even a short delay can be intolerable not only to the
department but also to the noticee. In such cases, the measure and test of
delay would be required to be considered in the facts of the case. This would
however not mean that an egregions delay can at all be justified. This apart,
delay would also have a cascading effect on the effectiveness and/or may
cause an abridgement of a right of appeal, which the assessee may have.
Thus, for all these reasons, delay in adjudication of show cause notice would
amount to denying fairness, judiciousness, non-arbitrariness and fulfillment
of an expectation of meaningfully applying the principles of natural justice.
We are also of the clear opinion that arbitrary and capricious administrative
behaviour in adjudication of show cause notice would be an antithesis to the
norms of a lawful, fair and effective quasi judicial adjudication. In our
opinion, these are also the principles which are implicit in the latin maxim
"lex dilationes abhorret", l.e., law abhors delay.
21. In such context as to how the Courts have dealt with similar
situations can be seen from some of the significant decisions on the issue. In
Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was
dealing with a case in which a show cause notice was issued on 30 April,
1997, which was not adjudicated till the petitioners filed the writ petition in
the year 2020. In such context, the Court while allowing the petition,
observed that the law is well settled that when a power is conferred to
achieve a particular object, such power has to be exercised reasonally,
rationally and with objectivity. It was observed that it would amount to an
arbitrary exercise of power if proceedings initiated in 1997 are not taken to
their logical conclusion even after a period of over two decades. The Court
agreed with the view taken in Parle International Ltd. (supra) that the
proceedings should be concluded within a reasonable period, and if the
proceedings that are not concluded within reasonable period, the Court
considering such facts, may not allow the proceedings to be carried any
further. Referring to the contentions on behalf of the respondent that the
respondent should be granted the liberty to conclude the proceedings, it was
observed that except for the petitioners who had approached the Court to
have the impugned show-cause notice set aside invoking the writ
jurisdiction of the Court of this Court, the show cause notice would have
continued to gather dust. The Court observed that the petitioners, in such
circumstances, cannot possibly be worse off in seeking a constitutional
remedy and thereby suffer an order to facilitate conclusion of the
proceedings, which was most likely to work out prejudice to them. The
following are the observations as made by the Court:
"15. We are also not persuaded, at this distance of time, to agree with
Mr. Jetly that the respondents should be granted liberty to conclude
the proceedings. It is the petitioners who have approached the Court
Page 9 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::

9-WP [email protected]
to have the impugned show- cause notice set aside. Had the
petitioners not invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the show-
cause notice would have continued to gather dust. The petitioners, in
such circumstances, cannot possibly be worse off for seeking a
Constitutional remedy and thereby suffer an order to facilitate
conclusion of the proceedings which, because of the inordinate delay
in its conclusion, is most likely to work out prejudice to them.

16. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is an admonition to the
State against arbitrary action. The State action in this case is such that
arbitrariness is writ large, thereby incurring the wrath of such article.
It is a settled principle of law that when there is violation of a
Fundamental Right, no prejudice even is required to be
demonstrated."
22. In Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited v.
Deputy Commissioner of CGST and CX, DIV-IX, Mumbai Central GST
Commissionerate 2022 (382) E.L.T. 206(Bom.), a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court observed on the prejudice which would be caused to the assessee
if for a long period the show cause notice is not adjudicated. It was held that
belated hearing of the show cause notice would amount to violation of
principles of natural justice. Following are the observations of the Court:
"10. It is not expected from the assessee to preserve the
evidence/record intact for such a long period to be produced at the
time of hearing of the show-cause notice. The respondent having
issued the show cause notice, it is their duty to take the said show-
cause notice to its logical conclusion by adjudicating upon the said
show-cause notice within a reasonable period of time. In view of the
gross delay on the part of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be
ade to suffer. The law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Parle International Limited (supra), applies to the facts
of this case. We do not propose to take any different view in the
matter. Hearing of show-cause notice belatedly is in violation of
natural justice."
23. In ATA Freight Line (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of this
Court considering the decisions in Parle International Ltd. (supra),
Bhagwandas S. Tolani v. B.C. Aggarwal & Ors. 1983 (12) E.L.T. 44 (Bom.)
and Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) held that a show cause notice issued a
decade back should not be allowed to be adjudicated by the Revenue merely
because there is no period of limitation prescribed in the statute to complete
such proceedings. The relevant observations of the Court are required to be
noted, which reads thus:
"24. This Court in case of Parle International Ltd. (supra) after
considering the identical facts and after adverting to the judgment in
cases of Bhagwandas S. Tolani (supra), Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt.
Ltd. (supra) and Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) held that that a
showcause notice issued a decade back should not be allowed to be
adjudicated upon by the revenue merely because there is no period
of limitation prescribed in the statute to complete such proceedings.
Larger public interest requires that revenue should adjudicate the
show-cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable period. It is
held that keeping the show-cause notice in the dormant list or the
call book, such a plea cannot be allowed or condoned by the writ
court to justify inordinate delay at the hands of the revenue. This
Page 10 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::

9-WP [email protected]
Court was accordingly pleased to quash and set aside the show cause
notices which were pending quite some time.

25. In case of Sushitex Exports India Ltd. (supra), Division
Bench of this Court was pleased to quash and set aside the show
cause notices which remained pending for adjudication from 1997.
This Court considered the fact that though the petitioner therein was
called for hearing in the year 2006, no final order was passed
immediately after hearing was granted to the petitioner. It is held
that the respondents seem to have slipped into deep slumber
thereafter. This Court while quashing and setting aside the show
cause notices which were not decided after long delay was pleased to
grant consequential relief to the petitioner therein by directing the
respondents to return the amounts paid by the petitioner under
protest during the course of investigation with interest @ 12% p.a.
26. This Court in case of The Bombay Dyeing and
Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
CGST & CX (supra) after adverting to the judgment in cases of Parle
International Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) and Reliance Industries
Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) has held that when a show cause
notice is issued to a party, it is expected that the same would be taken
to its logical conclusion within a reasonable period so that a finality
is reached. If the respondent would have informed the petitioner
about the said Show-Cause Notice having been kept in call book in
the year 2005 itself, the Petitioner would have immediately applied
for appropriate reliefs by filing the appropriate proceedings. It is held
that it is not expected from the assessee to preserve the
evidence/record intact for such a long period to be produced at the
time of hearing of the Show Cause Notice.
27. It is held that the respondent having issued the Show-Cause
notice, it is their duty to take the the said Show-Cause notice to its
logical conclusion by adjudicating upon the said Show-Cause Notice
within a reasonable period of time. In view of gross delay on the part
of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. This
Court accordingly was pleased to quash and set aside dated 16th
September 2005 in that matter. The principles of law laid down by
this Court in the above referred judgment would apply to the facts of
this case. We are respectfully bound by the principles of law laid
down by this Court in the said judgment. We do not propose to take
a different view in the matter.
28…..
29. In our view, since the respondents were totally responsible
for gross delay in adjudicating the show cause notices Issued by the
respondents causing prejudice and hardship to the petitioner and
have transferred the show cause notices to call book and kept in
abeyance without communication to the petitioner for more than 7
to 11 years, the respondents cannot be allowed to raise alternate
remedy at this stage. Be that as it may, no order has been passed by
the respondents on the said show cause notices. The question of
filing any appeal by the petitioner therefore did not arise.'
Page 11 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::

9-WP [email protected]
11. In UPL Ltd. (supra), a similar view has been taken by the Court, which

also referred to the decision in case of Coventry (supra).
12. In this view of the matter, it is clear that in the present case, apart from the
breach of the mandate of Rule 25 of the Cess Rules, the law otherwise would also
not permit the respondent/corporation to pass the impugned order. The said
order was passed after a period of 10 years from the issuance of the notice (Form-
H) dated 24 August 2011. The petition thus needs to succeed. Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
Writ Petition No. 639/24 & Writ Petition No. 638/24
13. Both these petitions would also stand covered by the aforesaid order passed
by us as admittedly, in these petitions also the assessment order was passed after
the delay of more than 10 years. These petitions are also accordingly allowed in
the similar terms as in Writ Petition No.637 of 2024.
14. In Writ Petition No. 639 of 2024, the notice (Form-H) is dated 15 June
2012 on which assessment order was passed on 23 August 2023 and in Writ
Petition No. 638 of 2024, the notice is dated 01 June 2013 on which the
assessment order was passed on 25 August 2023 which is again beyond the period
of 10 years. Thus, these petitions are also required to be disposed of in the
aforesaid terms following the decision in Siemens (supra). Hence, both these
petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 12 of 12
22 April 2026
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2026 13:32:23 :::