TRF Limited V. Union of India and Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur Commissionerate and Superintendent (Prevention), Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur Commissionerate and Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur Commissionerate

WPC/4559/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. TRF Limited, which challenged an adjudication order imposing tax, interest, and penalty based on alleged suppression of taxable value. The petitioner argued that the order violated principles of natural justice as their submitted documents were not considered, and the order was delayed beyond the stipulated time frame set by a Master Circular. The respondents contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under the Finance Act, 1994, and that the documents were considered in the adjudication order. The court found that the adjudicating authority did not consider the petitioner's documents and that the delay in passing the order was unjustified, leading to the quashing of the order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 801553 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, Devang Rasiklal Vora v. Union of India, S2 Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Omfra Dredge Services Pvt. Limited v. Union of India, Pradip J. Mehta v. CIT, Hindustan Level Limited v. Union of India, Modern School vs. Shashi Pal Sharma & ors, State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. vs. Commercial Steel Limited
• Laws Referred To: Finance Act, 1994, Indian Companies Act, 1956
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: P A S PATI; RANJANA MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMEET GADODIA; SALONA MITTAL
• Keywords: Adjudication; Natural Justice; Reconciliation; Service tax; Tax liability
• Section: 73(1A)

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 4559 OF 2022 M/s. TRF Limited, a Public Limited Company, incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its office at 11,Station Road, Burmamines, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S. Burmamines, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum-831007, through its Head Legal Counsel, Mr. Shrehaan Siddhartha, aged about 33 years, son of Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, resident of Bhadraghat, Baripatan Devi Colony, P.O. Gulzarbagh, P.S. Alamganj, District Patna (Bihar)-800 007. …………….. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi, P.O. – G.P.O., P.S. Sansad Marg, District New Delhi-110 001. 2. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur Commissionerate, having its office at Outer Circle Road, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) – 831 001. 3. Superintendent (Prevention), Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur Commissionerate, having its office at Outer Circle Road, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) – 831 001. 4. Superintendent (Adjudication), Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur Commissionerate, having its office at Outer Circle Road, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) – 831 001. …………. Respondents CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate Ms. Ranjana Mukherjee, Advocate 10/05.12.2022: 1. The instant writ application has been filed challenging Order-in- Original: 02-03/S.Tax/Commissioner/2022 dated 25.07.2022 passed by Respondent No.2 primarily on the ground that said order has been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice as the documents furnished by Petitioner on 12.01.2021 giving detailed reconciliation and 2 documentary evidences have not been considered by the adjudicating authority, and, also on the ground that adjudication order has been passed after a lapse of about more than 18 months from the date of the final hearing, thereby violating Clause 14.10 of Master Circular No. 1053/02/2017-CX dated 10th March, 2017, which provides, inter alia, that after conclusion of personal hearing, decision is required to be communicated as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month in any case, barring in exceptional circumstances to be recorded in the file. 2. The petitioner company is engaged in the business of executing various electromechanical jobs for bulk material handling equipment, and also has its manufacturing unit in Jamshedpur dedicated towards electromechanical jobs, Industrial Structure, Fabrication and Life Cycle Services and allied services. Petitioner was duly registered under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, and, for the periods in dispute i.e. 2012-13 to 2015-16 and the periodsbetween 2016-17 to 2017-18 (1st Quarter), the petitioner duly filed its Service Tax Returns being ST-3 Returns. However, on 03.01.2017, Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice pertaining to the periods 2012-13 to 2015-16 was issued to the Petitioner primarily stating, inter alia, that information from third party was received by Respondent-Department regarding mismatch of the figures of service income/receipts declared by the assessee in its Income Tax Returns and 26AS statements, vis-à-vis value declared in Service Tax Returns ((ST-3) for the corresponding period. It was alleged that figures of the value declared in ST-3 Returns were found to be on lower side with respect to the value of service income/receipts declared in Income Tax Return/26AS, thus, leading to apprehension of suppression of taxable value. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued asking the Petitioner to show cause as to why on the differential amount as reflected in 26AS statements and the value of services provided, declared in ST-3 Return, be not treated as suppressed taxable value; and levy of service tax and also levy of interest and penalty thereupon be not imposed. 3. Pursuant to the Show Cause Notice pertaining to the periods 2012- 13 to 2015-16, Petitioner submitted its reply dated 09.07.2018, and, primarily contended, inter alia, that before issuance of the Show Cause 3 Notice at the investigation stage itself, Petitioner brought to the notice of Respondent-authorities that the figures in Form 26AS pertaining to deduction of TDS also included the TDS deducted wrongly on the value of invoices related to supply of materials on which service tax liability does not arise, and, primarily for the said reason there was difference in the figures of 26AS statements and ST-3 Returns. 4. After the aforesaid first Show Cause Notice dated 03.11.2017, personal hearing was held before the adjudicating authority namely, Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur Commissionerate (Respondent No.2) on 10.07.2018 and 09.08.2018, but said hearing remained unconcluded and no order was passed pursuant to said hearing. Thereafter, on 15.04.2019, Petitioner was issued another Statement of Demand (Show Cause) for the periods 2016-17 to 2017-18 (first quarter) under section 73(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 on the same set of allegations as contained in earlier Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 03.11.2017. Consequent upon issuance of the second Show Cause Notice, Petitioner duly replied to the said Notice vide its reply dated 19th July, 2019. Thereafter, vide Notice dated 29.10.2020, both the Show Cause Notices were fixed for personal hearing through ‘virtual mode’, and, on 12.11.2020, hearing through ‘virtual mode’ was held by the successor in office of Respondent No.2. On the date of personal hearing on 12.11.2020, submissions of the Petitioner were specifically recorded that the amount reflected in 26AS also pertains to the amount received by it for supply of goods under sales contract as well as under works contract service and there is no service tax liability against the amount received pertaining to pure sales contract. However, it was recorded that Petitioner has not produced any corroborative evidence along with show cause reply and, accordingly, adjudicating authority asked the representative of the Petitioner to provide explanation for difference between the amount appearing in 26AS and ST-3 Return for each year with documentary evidence. Accordingly, vide letter dated 03.12.2020 issued by the office of the Commissionerate, Jamshedpur, Petitioner was directed to produce documentary evidences corroborating 4 the difference of the amount appearing in 26AS and ST-3 Return within 8 weeks from the date of personal hearing. 5. The further case of the petitioner company is that pursuant to the personal hearing held on 12.11.2020 and direction issued vide letter dated 03.12.2020, this petitioner, on 12.01.2021, submitted detailed reconciliation statement of difference of the figures between ST-3 Return and 26AS Statement for the financial years 2012-13 to 2015-16, and, asked for additional four weeks time to submit reconciliation for the period 2016-17 to 2017-18 (up to June, 2017). However, to the utter surprise of the Petitioner, it never received any communication from the office of Respondent No.2 and, straight away, adjudication order, being Order-in-Original: 02-03/S.Tax/Commissioner, 2022, dated 25.07.2022 was passed by Respondent No.2 imposing tax, interest and penalty upon the Petitioner. In the Order-in-Original, vide Para- 3, it has been recorded that after personal hearing and issuance of reminder letter dated 03.12.2020, the assesse did not submit any other evidence and, accordingly, adjudication order was passed. 6. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia assisted by Mr. Salona Mittal, Advocate have assailed the adjudication order and contended, inter alia, that pursuant to personal hearing held on 12.11.2020 and subsequent letter dated 03.12.2020, Petitioner produced and filed its written explanation enclosing therewith voluminous documentary evidences for reconciliation of the difference of the value appearing in 26AS Statement and ST-3 Return, vide its letter dated 12.01.2021, but said documents have not at all been considered by the adjudicating authority, which led to passing of the Order-in-Original in fragrant violation of the principles of natural justice, as Petitioner’s submissions dated 12.01.2021 have not been considered at all. Further while relying upon Master Circular No.1053/02/2017-CX dated 10th March, 2017, it has been contended that at least three numbers of personal hearing should have been given with sufficient interval of time, so that noticee may avail opportunity of being heard. It was further contended that aforesaid Master Circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs (for short ‘CBEC’), is binding upon officials of the Revenue.Reference was also placed upon Clause 14.10, which provides that 5 where personal hearing has been concluded, adjudication orders are required to be communicated as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month in any case, barring in exceptional circumstances to be recorded in the file. It has been contended that due to passage of time of almost more than 18 months in passing the Order-in-Original after the date of personal hearing, serious prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner, as the adjudicating authority has forgotten to consider, discuss and deal with various related contentions which were raised in the show cause reply, and, the most essential document dated 12.01.2021 containing therein written explanation along with documentary evidences explaining the reasons for difference between 26AS Statement and ST-3 Return itself, has not been considered. While referring to the adjudication order, it was brought to our notice that the adjudicating authority has itself admitted that points of taxation in income tax and service tax are different and, hence, liability cannot be determined from Form 26AS and, at best, Form 26AS is only a useful starting point for examining the mismatch and the reasons have to be looked into and reconciliation is to be resorted. It was submitted that despite the fact that Petitioner submitted the reconciliation vide its letter dated 12.01.2021 annexing detailed documentary evidences, it has been recorded in the Order-in-Original that documentary evidence was not furnished by the Petitioner and this is merely because Order-in-Original has been passed after a lapse of 18 months from the date of last personal hearing. In order to buttress his argument learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:- (1) Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318; (2) DevangRasiklalVora v. Union of India, (2004) 2 Mah LJ 208; (3) S2 Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2015) 323 ELT 464; (4) S2 Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, W.P. 11309 of 2014, order dated 31.08.2022 (Final Order); (5) Omfra Dredge Services Pvt. Limited v. Union of India, (2020) 372 ELT 691. (6) Pradip J. Mehta v. CIT, (2008)14 SCC 283; (7) Hindustan Level Limited v. Unionn of India, (2011) 264 ELT 173. 6 7. Per contra, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned advocate assisted by Ms. Ranjana Mukherjee, advocate, appearing for the revenue, raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by contending, inter alia, that Petitioner has equally efficacious and alternative remedy of preferring appeal under the Finance Act, 1994 before the Central Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). While referring to the Order-in-Original and the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents, it has been submitted that in the Order-in-Original, it is nowhere recorded that Petitioner has not filed its written explanation dated 12.01.2021, but it has only been recorded, inter alia, that even after issuance of a reminder dated 03.12.2020, they never produced any other evidence. By referring to the aforesaid finding in the adjudication order and Para-13 of the Counter Affidavit, it has been submitted that although letter dated 12.01.2021 does not find mention in the Order-in-Original, but submissions of the Petitioner have been dealt with in the Order-in-Original dated 25th July, 2022 vide paragraphs 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 of the said order, and, hence, it is incorrect to say that the Order-in-Original has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. With regard to delay in passing of the adjudication order, while referring to para-30 of the Counter Affidavit, it has been submitted that delay in passing of the order was on account of delay on the part of the Petitioner to submit additional reply/documents for which Petitioner itself has asked for time and ever after lapse of considerable time, when the Petitioner failed to submit the same, finally,adjudication order dated 25th July, 2022 was passed taking into account information and grounds already on record. It was further submitted that there is difference between no opportunity of hearing being granted, vis-à-vis sufficiency of opportunity of hearing to be granted to an assessee, and, in the later case, extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court should not be exercised and Petitioner should be relegated to avail alternative remedy existing under the Statutes. In order to buttress its aforesaid contention, reliance was placed on the following decisions, namely:- (1) Modern School vs. Shashi Pal Sharma &ors, reported in (2007) 8 SCC, 540; (2) State Bank of Patiala &Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364 (Para 28); and 7 (3) Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors. vs. Commercial Steel Limited, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 884. 8. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and the averments made therein;it is relevant to note here that when the instant matter was first taken up for consideration before this Court, this Court, vide order dated 22.09.2022, recorded the contentions of the Petitioner and directed the Respondent-Central Excise Department to file its Counter Affidavit. The order of this Court dated 22.09.2022 is quoted for here-in- under for the sake of ready reference:- “22.09.2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the record of personal hearing dated 12th November, 2020 and the reminder furnished on 3rd December, 2020 at pages 168 and 169 of the memo of the writ petition, whereby the adjudicating authority has asked the representative of the petitioner company to provide for the explanation for the difference between the amount appearing in the 26AS and the ST-3 return for each of the year covered in the show cause notice with documentary evidence. However, though such document was submitted with a forwarding letter dated 12th January, 2021 (Annexure-20) and duly received on the same date by the office of the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, the adjudication order at paragraph 3 (Annexure-21) surprisingly records that even after the issuance of the reminder on 3rd December, 2020, they never produced any other evidence. It is submitted that the entire adjudication has not taken into account the very explanation submitted by the petitioner on asking. Besides that, it is submitted that the adjudication order has been passed on 25th July, 2022, after about 18 months of the personal hearing and is in teeth of the specific circular, para 14.10 of the Circular dated 10th March, 2017 (Annexure-22), issued by the C.B.E.C. to all Principal Chief Commissioners/Chief Commissioners of Service Tax and other authorities of the Central Excise and Customs department. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent Central Excise Department prays for 2 weeks’ time to seek instruction to file counter affidavit. One week thereafter to the petitioner to file reply, if so advised.” 9. Thereafter, Counter Affidavit was filed by the Respondents-Revenue on 13th/14th October, 2022 and, in the Counter Affidavit, Respondents have not denied the fact of having received the letter dated 12.01.2021. However, in the Counter Affidavit, it was stated that although letter dated 12.01.2021 does not find mention in the Order-in-Original, but it was 8 contended that at the time of passing of the Order-in-Original, submissions of the Petitioner have been dealt with. For ready reference, relevant extract of Paragraph-13 of the Counter Affidavit is quoted hereunder:- “Although the letter dated 12.01.2021 does not find mention in the Order-in-Original, the submissions of the petitioners have been dealt with in the Order dated 25.07.2022 at paras 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 of the Order dated 25.07.2022 (pages 21 t o 24 of the said Order). Further, it is to state that payment of service tax is governed by Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 and timing difference has to be explained in that light. Exempted services claimed by the petitioner have admittedly not been mentioned in statutory returns. Even at the time of investigation, no such claim was made.” 10. Thereafter, the petitioner filed its Rejoinder Affidavit to the said Counter Affidavit and highlighted the portions of the Order-in-Original dated 25th July, 2022, particularly paras 4.3 to 4.7, and, it was emphasized that in the said paragraphs of the adjudication order, the sole basis of determining suppression of turnover was that Petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence showing reconciliation of the amount of difference in 26AS statement and ST-3 Returns. Along with the Rejoinder Affidavit, the petitioner annexed voluminous documents which were filed before the adjudicating authority along with the letter dated 12.01.2021 to, prima facie, demonstrate before this Court that Petitioner has submitted detailed reconciliation of the difference between the Statement in Form 26AS and ST-3 Return along with documentary evidences. However, since aforesaid documents itself have not been considered in the Order-in- Original, the petitioner has been gravely prejudiced and huge liability towards tax, interest and penalty has been fastened upon the Petitioner. 11. The matter was again taken up for consideration by this Court on 18.10.2022, and, on the said date, Respondents were, in substance, directed to seek instructions as to whether supporting documents filed along with Rejoinder Affidavit were forming part of the letter dated 12.01.2021 or not and whether said documents were received by the Respondent-Department. Pursuant thereto; Supplementary Counter Affidavit was filed, wherein it 9 has been admitted that supporting documents along with the letter dated 12.01.2021 were also filed by the Petitioner. 12. At this stage it is relevant to refer relevant part of Para-3 & 4.3 to 4.7 of the Order in Original, which is quoted herein below:- “3. Personal Hearing…………………………….. In this regard, the Adjudicating Authority asked the said representatives to provide the explanation for the difference between the amount appearing in the 26AS and the ST-3 return for each of the years covered in the SCN/SOD, with documentary evidence. The representatives promised to submit the same. They also requested to allow them eight weeks' time to submit the reconciliation for the 2012-2013 to 2015-16. Even after issuance of a reminder on 03.12.2020 they never produced any other evidence. 4.3. ………… In 2012-13 the noticee received an amount of Rs. 304,66,39,427/under Sections 194C and 194J.This has been considered as cum tax value leading to taxable value of Rs.271,14,98,244/.The noticee declared ST-3 gross value as service provider (without Service Tax) of Rs.206,65,85,686/- only. At the time of personal hearing the representatives of the noticee were asked to provide explanation for the difference between the amount appearing in form 26AS and ST-3 returns, for each of the years covered in the show cause notice/SOD, with documentary evidence. The representatives promised to submit the same but failed to do so. …………..XXX 4.4 For the financial year 2013-14 the receipt under Sections 194C and 194J (as per Form 26AS) is Rs.228,14,30,286/- which has been considered as gross taxable value in view of the fact that the noticee did not submit any documents to substantiate that the amount charged by them from their service recipients included service tax. …………XXX 4.5 Similarly, for the financial year 2014-15, the receipt under Sections 194C and 194J (as per Form 26AS) is Rs140,70,99,187/- which has been considered as gross taxable value in view of the fact that the noticee did not submit any documents to substantiate that the amount charged by them from their service recipients included service tax. In the absence of copies of invoices and/or other details related to the invoices, it cannot be said that the gross amount is inclusive of service tax payable. Hence, the value as per FORM 26AS has been considered as gross taxable value. ……………XXX 10 4.6 For the financial year 2015-16, the receipt under Sections 194C and 194J (as per Form 26AS) is Rs102,29,43,520/- which has been considered as gross taxable value in view of the fact that the noticee did not submit any documents to substantiate that the amount charged by them from their service recipients included service tax. In the absence of copies of invoices and/or other details related to the invoices, it cannot be said that the gross amount is Inclusive of service tax payable. Hence, the value as per Form 26AS has been considered as gross taxable value. ………………….XXX 4.7 For the period 2016-17, the gross taxable value (as per Form 26AS) has been considered to be Rs.89,13,00,095/- in view of the fact that the noticee did not submit any documents to substantiate that the amount charged by them from their service recipients included service tax. In the absence of copies of invoices and/or other details related to the invoices, it cannot be said that the gross amount is inclusive of service tax payable……………………….XXX” In the Order-in-Original itself, the adjudicating authority has recorded that liability cannot be determined on the basis of Form 26AS alone and the said document is only a useful starting point for examining the mismatch between 26AS and ST-3 figures and reconciliation is required to be resorted to arrive at the conclusion as to whether there is any concealment of turnover by an assessee. Despite the said fact being recorded in the Order-in-Original itself and despite the fact that, admittedly, for the periods 2012-13 to 2015-16, pursuant to personal hearing, Petitioner submitted the reconciliation statement along with documentary evidences of the difference in figures, the same was not considered in the Order-in- Original. In fact, from bare perusal of paragraphs 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Order-in-Original, it would be evident that differential amount of 26AS and ST-3 figures for the financial years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 were treated as suppression of turnover under the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground that Petitioner has not submitted any document to substantiate the said difference. 13. That apart, for the periods 2016-17 and 2017-18, pursuant to issuance of Statement of Demand dated 15.04.2019, solitary personal hearing was held on 12.11.2020, wherein Petitioner was directed to produce 11 evidences, and, the Petitioner, vide its letter dated 12.01.2021, asked for further time for producing evidence, but without giving any further opportunity, straight away, the Order-in-Original was passed on 25th July, 2022. Thus, by only granting one opportunity to the Petitioner with respect to the periods 2016-17 and 2017-18, Order-in-Original has been passed, which is also contrary to the guidelines issued by CBEC in its Master Circular dated 10th March, 2017. CBEC has issued Master Circular dated 10th March, 2017 laying down therein detailed guidelines relating to issuance of Show Cause Notice and passing of adjudication order. Clause 14.3 and 14.10 of the said Master Circular are quoted hereunder:- “14.3 Personal hearing : After having given a fair opportunity to the noticee for replying to the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority may proceed to fix a date and time for personal hearing in the case and request the assessee to appear before him for a personal hearing by himself or through an authorized representative. At least three opportunities of personal hearing should be given with sufficient interval of time so that the noticee may avail opportunity of being heard. Separate communications should be made to the noticee for each opportunity of personal hearing. In fact separate letter for each hearing/extension should be issued at sufficient interval. The Adjudicating authority may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of proceeding adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing. However, no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a noticee.” Xxx xxx xxx “14.10 Issue and Communication of order: In all cases where personal hearing has been concluded, it is necessary to communicate the decision as expeditiously as possible as but not later than one month in any case, barring in exceptional circumstances to be recorded in the file. The order is required to be communicated to the assessee in terms of provisions of Section 37C of the CEA, 1944.” 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of decisions, have held that circulars issued by the Department are binding on the Department. Reference in this regard may be made to the case of “Pradip J. Mehta v. CIT (2008) 14 SCC 283)”. Admittedly, in the instant case, opportunity of personal hearing was given on 12.01.2021 and the adjudication order was passed on 25th July, 2022 i.e. almost after 20 months from the date of hearing. Even if the date of furnishing of written explanation by the Petitioner i.e. on 12.01.2021 is 12 reckoned as the starting date for passing of the adjudication order, then also the adjudication order has been passed after a delay of 18 months. Although in the Counter Affidavit it has been stated that delay in passing of the adjudication order was attributable to the Petitioner as the Petitioner delayed in submission of its document, but we fail to understand as to why adjudication order was not passed within a month after the Petitioner furnished the documents on 12.01.2021. In the Counter Affidavit, no document has been brought on record recording the reasons of delay in passing of the adjudication order, which is also contrary to the mandate of the Master Circular dated 10th March, 2017. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of ‘Anil Rai’ (supra), has held that “justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done. Similarly, whereas justice delayed is justice denied, justice withheld is even worse than that.”The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said Judgment has even laid down some guidelines regarding the pronouncement of Judgments by superior courts i.e. High Courts. 15. A series of circulars have been issued by CBEC laying down guidelines that there should not be any unreasonable delay in passing adjudication orders which will be causing difficulties and obstacle in realizing public revenue expeditiously. In fact, in the interest of revenue itself, delay in passing of the adjudication orders would act as an impediment in timely realization of the disputed amount. That apart, pronouncement of judgment, being a part of justice dispensation system, has to be without delay, as justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done. The present case is a classic example wherein due to delay in passing of the adjudication order it appears that the most vital documents submitted by the assessee, being the reconciliation documents, were not considered and dealt with by the adjudicating authority despite the fact that they admit now in the supplementary counter affidavit that the same were available on record. An obvious inference of omission to make reference to the documents can be due to the delayed delivery of the Judgment causing grave prejudice to the assessee and miscarriage of justice. 13 We hold that the instant writ application is maintainable being violative of principles of natural justice and also is against the circular issued by the CBEC itself which is the apex body of the respondents. 16. In view of the aforesaid cumulative facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, we, hereby, quash and set aside the Order-in- Original: 02-03/S.Tax/Commissioner/2022 dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Jamshedpur (Respondent No.2) and remand the matter back to Respondent No.2 to pass fresh adjudication order after giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and after taking into consideration the documents furnished by the Petitioner vide letter dated 12.01.2021 for the periods 2012-13 to 2015-16. Further, since the matter is being remanded the Respondents may grant one further opportunity to the Petitioner to furnish reconciliation statement for the periods 2016-17 and 2017-18 also.It is however made clear that if Petitioner fails to furnish the document/reconciliation for the financial years 2016-17 and 2017-18 within a reasonable time granted by the adjudicating authority, the adjudicating authority would be at liberty to proceed for passing of the adjudication order without awaiting for the documents by the Petitioner. It is desirable that aforesaid exercise of passing of denovo adjudication order is completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order in accordance with law. Accordingly, I.A. Nos.8637/2022 and 8639/2022 are also stand disposed of. Ordered accordingly. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) (Deepak Roshan, J) Fahim-Amardeep/ "