In a recent ruling of Bhushan Vora v/s The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others, the Bombay High Court addressed the prolonged adjudication of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under the Customs Act, which had remained unresolved for nearly eight years. This case highlights the importance of timely proceedings in administrative actions, emphasizing procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, operating as a sole proprietor under the name "Global Marking," is engaged in the import and export of saffron. On March 10, 2015, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) issued an SCN, demanding a sum of Rs. 3,66,360 as import duty, along with interest, under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Following a detailed response from the petitioner on April 2, 2015, the case stagnated for nearly three years without any action from the authorities. In February 2018, the petitioner was informed that a Commissioner of Customs had been appointed as the adjudicating authority for the SCN. Despite submitting a response to this communication, including a request for a personal hearing, further proceedings were delayed for over four years. A personal hearing was finally scheduled for December 13, 2022, leading the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that the excessive delay in adjudicating the SCN violated principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The court was presented with numerous precedents where similar delays had resulted in quashing of SCNs.

In defense, the respondents attributed the delay to the case being transferred to a "call book" due to conflicting judicial decisions. However, the court noted that the petitioner had not been informed of this transfer, thereby undermining the validity of the respondents’ justification for the delay. The lack of communication meant that the petitioner could not safeguard necessary evidence or contest the SCN effectively.

The Bombay High Court emphasized that even in the absence of statutory time limits for adjudication, administrative authorities must act within a reasonable timeframe. The court cited several prior rulings establishing that undue delays in the adjudication process are detrimental to the interests of justice. The judgment referred to key principles that require parties to be informed when proceedings are kept in abeyance and highlighted the significant prejudice faced by the petitioner due to the long delay. The court also distinguished the current case from previous rulings cited by the respondents, underscoring that those decisions did not address the specific procedural failures involved in this instance.

Ultimately, the Bombay High Court quashed the SCN issued to the petitioner, reaffirming the necessity of adhering to procedural fairness in administrative actions. The ruling serves as a reminder that authorities must diligently pursue timely adjudications, maintaining communication with affected parties to ensure fairness and justice. In light of the court's decision, the legal landscape surrounding the adjudication of SCNs has been clarified, reinforcing the significance of procedural rights and the need for governmental accountability in revenue-related matters. The ruling not only resolves the petitioner’s plight but also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.