TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition challenging show-cause-cum-demand notices at the threshold and quash them on the ground that the dispute over preferential duty benefit, certificate of origin, and alleged fraud ought not to be left to adjudication.
Analysis: The petitions questioned notices issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, in relation to claimed benefit under Customs Notification No. 46/11 dated 1st June, 2011 and the origin-certification mechanism under Notification No. 189/2009 (N.T.) dated 31st December, 2009. The Court held that the objections raised by the petitioners, including interpretation of the notification in the light of the treaty framework, the binding nature of the certificate issued by the designated authority, and the effect of the communications relied upon by the revenue, were all matters that could appropriately be urged before the adjudicating authority. The allegation that the certificate was obtained by fraud was also treated as a matter for adjudication and not for determination in writ proceedings. The Court found no basis to assume that the adjudicating authority would not grant a fair hearing or decide the notice independently, and declined to treat the proceedings as an empty formality.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained and the challenge to the show-cause notices was rejected.
TaxTMI 
