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>Court directs Commissioner to treat writ petition as response to show cause notice, sets timeline for proceedings. Petitioner can submit more arguments.</h1> <h3>Trishul Buildtech And Infrastructure Private Limited Versus The Union Of India, The Commissioner Of Central Tax (Audit) Bengaluru Audit II,</h3> Trishul Buildtech And Infrastructure Private Limited Versus The Union Of India, The Commissioner Of Central Tax (Audit) Bengaluru Audit II, - TMI Issues:1. Challenge to the validity of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.2. Request for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the show cause notice dated 21.10.2021.3. Request for a Writ of Mandamus to withdraw and cancel the impugned show cause notice.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to the validity of Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of IndiaThe petitioner initially sought a declaration that Section 65B(44) of the Act is arbitrary and ultra vires of the Constitution. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner decided not to press this relief. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition with a direction for the petitioner to treat the writ petition as a reply to the show cause notice. The court emphasized the need for cooperation from the petitioner in the proceedings conducted by the Commissioner Central Tax (Audit), Bangalore North Taluk.Issue 2: Request for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the show cause noticeThe petitioner requested the court to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the show cause notice dated 21.10.2021. However, due to the petitioner's decision not to challenge the validity of Section 65B(44) anymore, the court directed the Commissioner to consider the writ petition as a response to the show cause notice. The court instructed the Commissioner to conclude the proceedings within eight weeks from the date of the order.Issue 3: Request for a Writ of Mandamus to withdraw and cancel the impugned show cause noticeThe petitioner also sought a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to order the withdrawal and cancellation of the show cause notice. As per the court's decision, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner to treat the writ petition as a response to the notice and to expedite the proceedings, ensuring cooperation from the petitioner and avoiding unnecessary adjournments. The petitioner was granted the liberty to provide additional submissions to the Commissioner within one week.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the petitioner's requests by directing the Commissioner to treat the writ petition as a response to the show cause notice, emphasizing the need for cooperation and setting a timeline for the conclusion of proceedings. The court kept all contentions open and allowed the petitioner to submit further arguments if necessary.
TaxTMI 