TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>High Court Resolves Challenge to Show Cause Notice After 8 Years, Drops Demand</h1> <h3>M/s. PHD Chamber Of Commerce And Industry Versus Union Of India & Ors.</h3> The High Court concluded that the challenge to the Show Cause Notice and re-initiation of adjudication proceedings after eight years were resolved as the ... Legality and validity of re-initiation of adjudication proceedings after eight years - time limitation - Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- In view of the order-in-original passed by the Adjudicating Authority and the demand having been dropped against the Petitioner, no further order is required to be passed in the present petition, as the grievance of the Petitioner stands satisfied - It is made clear that the questions of law raised in the present petition including the period of limitation stipulated in Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 for determining the amount of Service Tax due under Section 73(2), are kept open. Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to Show Cause Notice and re-initiation of adjudication proceedings after eight years.Validity of proceedings under Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 11.10.2012 issued by Respondent No.2 and the legality of re-initiating adjudication proceedings after eight years of closing the matter. The main contention was that the proceedings were time-barred under Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. Respondents argued that the demand raised in the earlier notice had been dropped by an order-in-original dated 26.03.2021. The Adjudicating Authority's order stated that the demand against the Petitioner was dropped, rendering the present petition satisfied.The High Court, after hearing both parties and examining the order-in-original dated 26.03.2021, which dropped the demand against the Petitioner, concluded that no further order was necessary as the Petitioner's grievance was addressed. However, the Court clarified that the legal issues raised in the petition, including the period of limitation specified in Section 73(4B)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, were left open for future consideration. Consequently, the writ petition and pending applications were disposed of by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
