TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses writ petition challenging communication on Gold Dore Bars, underscores independence and compliance.</h1> The court dismissed the writ petition challenging a communication from the Respondent-Director regarding the import of Gold Dore Bars. The petitioner's ... Import of Gold Dore Bars - Condition No.34(a) of the Notification No.12/2012 - Held that: - this Court is of the opinion that there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to file this repetitive writ petition. The petitioner-assessee was expected to attend to the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority in pursuance of the SCN issued to him, for which, the Respondent- Director(TRU-I) has already made it clear in the impugned communication Annexure-A dated 10.10.2017 that the Adjudicating Authority namely, the Commissioner/Prl.Commissioner may not be influenced by the Instructions dated 15.04.2013. There is no justification for this Court to interfere in the matter again and the Adjudicating Authority is expected to pass orders in accordance with law adjudicating show-cause notice issued to the petitioner - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Interpretation of communication from Respondent-Director (TRU-I) regarding import of Gold Dore Bars.2. Request for modification of clarification dated 15.04.2013 in line with court judgments.3. Justification for filing a repetitive writ petition.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a communication from the Respondent-Director (TRU-I) regarding the import of Gold Dore Bars. The communication directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide on the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, taking into account previous court orders. The petitioner sought clarifications which were not provided, leading to the petition.2. The petitioner requested modification of the clarification dated 15.04.2013 to align with court judgments. The prayers in the writ petition included quashing the order dated 10.10.2017 and issuing a mandamus for specific directions related to the import conditions of Gold Dore Bars. The court noted that the petitioner's repetitive filing lacked justification as the Adjudicating Authority was expected to proceed with the show-cause notice independently of the instructions dated 15.04.2013.3. The court found no basis for interference, emphasizing that the Adjudicating Authority should decide on the show-cause notice in compliance with the law. The communication dated 10.10.2017, which had prompted the writ petition, was analyzed in detail to demonstrate the procedural history and the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court. The court highlighted that any further directions or instructions at that stage could unduly influence the ongoing adjudication process, emphasizing the independence of the Adjudicating Authority in deciding the matter. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without costs, with instructions to forward a copy of the order to the Respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
