Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>High Court Quashes Show-Cause Notice, Orders Refund</h1> <h3>Sunder System Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India & Ors.</h3> Sunder System Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union Of India & Ors. - 2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 621 (Del.) Issues:1. Quashing of adjudication proceeding and refund claim based on limitation period under Finance Act, 1994.2. Change in adjudicating authority and jurisdiction during the proceedings.3. Interpretation of Section 73(4B)(a)&(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding time limits for adjudication.4. Compliance with Circulars and instructions issued by the Board regarding timely communication of decisions.5. Precedents regarding the necessity of time limits for adjudication.Issue 1: Quashing of adjudication proceeding and refund claim based on limitation period under Finance Act, 1994The petitioner sought to quash the adjudication proceeding initiated by a show-cause notice and subsequent corrigendum, claiming that the proceeding was time-barred under the limitation period of one year for adjudication as per the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner also requested a refund of a specific amount along with interest. The respondents argued that there was no provision prescribing a time limit for conducting adjudication proceedings. However, the Court emphasized the importance of deciding show-cause notices within prescribed time limits, as failure to do so would vitiate the proceedings. The Court found that the adjudicating authority could have adjudicated the matter within the one-year period from the conclusion of arguments but failed to do so, leading to the allowance of the writ petition based on the ground of limitation.Issue 2: Change in adjudicating authority and jurisdiction during the proceedingsDuring the pendency of the petition, a corrigendum was issued changing the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority, which the petitioner contested as the new authority was not deemed appropriate under the Finance Act. This change raised concerns about the continuity and consistency of the adjudication process. However, the primary focus of the judgment was on the limitation issue, leading to the quashing of the show-cause notice and the refund directive.Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 73(4B)(a)&(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding time limits for adjudicationThe Court analyzed Section 73(4B)(a)&(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, which prescribes time limits for adjudication based on different scenarios. Referring to a previous case, the Court reiterated that the statutory authority must decide show-cause notices within the prescribed time limits. The failure to adhere to these time limits can render the proceedings invalid. The Court's interpretation of this section played a crucial role in the decision to allow the writ petition based on the limitation issue.Issue 4: Compliance with Circulars and instructions issued by the Board regarding timely communication of decisionsThe petitioner highlighted Circulars and instructions issued by the Board emphasizing the necessity of communicating decisions promptly after personal hearings. The Court acknowledged these directives, underscoring the importance of timely adjudication and decision communication. This aspect further supported the petitioner's argument regarding the violation of the limitation period for adjudication in this case.Issue 5: Precedents regarding the necessity of time limits for adjudicationCiting precedents, the Court emphasized that even in the absence of specific time limits, statutory authorities must exercise their jurisdiction within a reasonable period. Failure to do so can invalidate the proceedings. The Court referred to various cases to support the importance of timely adjudication and decision-making by the authorities. This legal principle was crucial in the Court's decision to allow the writ petition based on the limitation issue.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the show-cause notice, and directed the respondents to refund the specified amount to the petitioner within a stipulated timeframe. The judgment primarily focused on the violation of the limitation period for adjudication under the Finance Act, 1994, emphasizing the significance of timely adjudication and decision communication in legal proceedings.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found