1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court Orders Timely Response to Show Cause Notice, Urges Prompt Adjudication</h1> The court directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within a specified timeframe, preserving their right to challenge the adequacy of ... Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Seizure Issues:1. Failure to issue show cause notice within the stipulated time period under Section 110 of the Customs Act.2. Dispute regarding the sufficiency of notices issued to individual directors versus the company itself.3. Delay in adjudication proceedings and the need for the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice.Analysis:Issue 1: The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus, alleging that the respondents failed to issue a show cause notice within six months as mandated by Section 110 of the Customs Act. The petitioner argued that this failure entitled them to relief. The respondents contended that notices were indeed issued to all directors of the petitioner's company within the stipulated time frame. Acknowledgments received by the directors were presented as evidence of this compliance. The court noted that while notices were issued to individual directors, the adequacy of such notices in satisfying the statutory requirements under Section 110 was disputed.Issue 2: The court acknowledged that some form of notice had been issued to the petitioner, albeit to individual directors and officers, rather than directly to the company. The sufficiency of these notices under Section 110 was deemed a matter for the adjudicating authorities to determine. The court directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice within a specified timeframe, preserving their right to challenge the adequacy of the notices served on individual directors. The respondents were instructed to conclude the adjudication proceedings promptly, considering the prolonged pendency of the matter.Issue 3: In light of the circumstances, the court ordered the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks. Following this, the respondents were directed to make a determination on whether the notice to the petitioner complied with Section 110 within four weeks. The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution given the extended duration of the proceedings. The judgment left all contentions open for further consideration and disposed of the writ petition accordingly, dismissing related applications in light of the petition's resolution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
