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>Supreme Court vacates show cause notices for delay, rules on admissibility of electronic records</h1> <h3>Rajvinder Singh Bath, Manager M/s Gursam International Versus Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana</h3> Rajvinder Singh Bath, Manager M/s Gursam International Versus Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the show cause notices issued on 07.10.2016 and adjudicated on 28.05.2019 shall stand vacated in terms of the explanation 4 to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 or notRs.2. Whether the show cause notice can be issued for recovery under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 without challenging the assessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act 1962Rs.3. Whether in the absence of following the procedure prescribed under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962, the documents relied by the adjudicating authority are admissible or notRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue (i): Whether the show cause notices issued on 07.10.2016 and adjudicated on 28.05.2019 shall stand vacated in terms of the explanation 4 to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 or notRs.The appellants argued that the show cause notices issued on 07.10.2016 and adjudicated on 28.05.2019 should be vacated based on the amended explanation 4 to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates adjudication within one year from the date of the show cause notice. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Harkaran Dass Vedpal held that the amendment made on 28.03.2018 is retroactive, implying that show cause notices issued before 29.03.2018 should be adjudicated within one year from 28.03.2018. The High Court further clarified in M/s Prabhat Fertilizers & Chemical Works that the amendment should be treated as retroactive, requiring adjudication within one year from 29.03.2018. Since the show cause notices in this case were not adjudicated within one year from the retroactive date, the notices stand vacated, and the impugned order was set aside.Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice can be issued for recovery under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 without challenging the assessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act 1962Rs.The appellants contended that the demand of duty under Section 28 cannot be made without reassessment under Section 17 and that the Department has no authority to issue a show cause notice under Section 28 without first reassessing the bill of entry. However, the Revenue argued that the proper officer has the power to reassess the duty under Section 17 and issue a show cause notice under Section 28 for recovery of duty short paid or not paid. The Supreme Court in the case of Virgo Steels and Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd held that the power to recover duty which has escaped collection is a concomitant power arising out of the levy of customs duty under Section 12 of the Act, and Section 28 provides the procedural aspect for recovery of duty. Therefore, the show cause notice under Section 28 can be issued without challenging the assessment under Section 17.Issue (iii): Whether in the absence of following the procedure prescribed under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962, the documents relied by the adjudicating authority are admissible or notRs.The appellants argued that the documents/conversations recovered from emails were taken without complying with Section 138C of the Act, which requires a certificate for admissibility of electronic records. However, the Revenue contended that the emails were retrieved from web-based email accounts and were signed by the respective owners, making them admissible under Section 139 of the Act. The Tribunal in the case of Copier Force India Ltd and Shri Ulacanavari Ammali Steels held that printouts from computers are admissible if corroborated by other evidence. The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar clarified that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is not always mandatory and can be relaxed in the interest of justice. Therefore, the electronic records in this case are admissible as evidence.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed on the first issue, vacating the show cause notices as they were not adjudicated within the stipulated time. The remaining issues were kept open for future reference. The Member (Technical) disagreed and opined that the appeals should be dismissed, holding that the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in M/s Prabhat Fertilizers & Chemical Works is not applicable. The matter was referred to the Hon’ble President for consideration by a third member due to the difference in opinion.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found