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 sets aside show-cause notice, grants petitioner opportunity to submit additional representations</h1> <h3>M/s. Khoday India Limited Versus Joint Director Directorate General of GST Intelligence Bengaluru, Additional / Joint commissioner of Central GST Bengaluru Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Union Of India</h3> M/s. Khoday India Limited Versus Joint Director Directorate General of GST Intelligence Bengaluru, Additional / Joint commissioner of Central GST ... Issues Involved:Challenge to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and related notifications; Quashing of an impugned show-cause notice; Legality of specific notifications under the CGST Act, 2017 and Service Tax Rules, 1994.Analysis:The petitioner sought various reliefs through a writ petition, challenging the constitutionality of Section 66D(a)(iv) of the Finance Act, 1994 and certain notifications. The petitioner also sought to quash an impugned show-cause notice, arguing it was unreasonable, arbitrary, and without legal authority. The High Court examined the contentions and materials presented by both parties.The petitioner contended that certain items in the show-cause notice were covered under a retrospective exemption granted by an amendment to the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner highlighted that liabilities for some items had been discharged. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing against its merit. The Court noted the contentions and examined the specifics of the items listed in the show-cause notice.The Court observed that the retrospective exemption under the Finance Act, 1994 applied to certain items, benefiting the petitioner. Consequently, the Court set aside Item Nos. 1 to 5 of the show-cause notice. Regarding Item Nos. 6 to 14, where the petitioner had already discharged liabilities, the Court directed the respondents to consider this fact, provide an opportunity to the petitioner, and make decisions in accordance with the law.In the final order, the Court disposed of the writ petition, setting aside the impugned show-cause notice concerning Item Nos. 1 to 5. For Item Nos. 6 to 14, the respondents were directed to evaluate the petitioner's claim of liability discharge promptly and in compliance with the law. The petitioner was granted the liberty to submit additional representations for further consideration by the respondents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
