Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim protection against the impugned show-cause-cum-demand notice on the ground that pre-show-cause notice consultation, as contemplated by the applicable Board circular, had not been afforded, and whether the subsequent circular could be applied retrospectively to deny that protection.
Analysis: The challenge rested on the assertion that the demand notice was issued in a high-pitch assessment without the pre-show-cause notice consultation contemplated in Circular No. 1076/02/2020-CX dated 19.11.2020. The subsequent circular relied upon by the respondents was read as not wholly excluding pre-show-cause notice consultation, but leaving room for a discretionary exercise by the authority. The Court further held, at this interim stage, that the later circular did not state that it would operate retrospectively, and that a benefit available under a statute, circular, or notification cannot ordinarily be taken away retrospectively unless such intention is expressly indicated.
Conclusion: The petitioner established a prima facie case for interim relief and the respondents were restrained from proceeding further on the impugned notice until disposal of the writ petition.