UPL LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, made returnable forthwith. The respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

(2.) The present petition filed under Sec. 226 of the Constitution is another classic case where the lackadaisical approach of respondent no.2- Commissioner of Central Excise in not adjudicating the show cause notice issued 13 years back dtd. 21/10/2010 is prayed to be quashed and set aside by the petitioner, on the ground that the law would not permit such delayed adjudication of the show cause notice.

(3.) At the outset, we may observe that when the petitioner is before the Court pointing out serious lapses on the part of respondent no.2- Commissioner of Central GST, reply affidavit to the petition has been filed by the said respondent but by Shri. Akshay Patil, Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Division-IV, Mumbai. We wonder as to why the Commissioner who has issued the show cause notice and who has impleaded as respondent no.2 has kept himself away from the Court and has not bothered to respond to this petition when whatever was happening with show cause notice, was to the knowledge of this officer only. It can never be conceived that the Deputy Commissioner who has filed the reply affidavit is a person competent to file such affidavit.