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: (i) Whether the five-day delay in filing the review petition should be condoned. (ii) Whether the show cause notice dated 8 September 2017 issued to the petitioner was liable to be quashed in review.
Issue (i): Whether the five-day delay in filing the review petition should be condoned.
Analysis: The application disclosed reasonable grounds for the short delay, and the delay did not prejudice the opposing party. The Court therefore accepted the explanation offered for the delay.
Conclusion: The delay in filing the review petition was condoned.
Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice dated 8 September 2017 issued to the petitioner was liable to be quashed in review.
Analysis: The review petition clarified that the show cause notice had in fact been challenged in the connected writ petition, and the earlier order had proceeded on a mistaken impression to the contrary. Since the petitioner stood on the same footing as the similarly placed party that had obtained relief, parity required that the same relief be extended.
Conclusion: The show cause notice dated 8 September 2017 was quashed and set aside.
Final Conclusion: The review succeeded, the earlier mistake was corrected, and the petitioner obtained the same relief as other similarly placed importers.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a prior order proceeds on an incorrect factual assumption about the existence of a challenge to the impugned notice, the error may be corrected in review and identical relief may be extended on parity to a similarly placed petitioner.
TaxTMI 
