TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether a show cause notice proposing duty demand for the extended period under section 11A, when issued by the Deputy Collector instead of the Collector, was legally valid.
Analysis: Section 11A, as brought into force, required that where the Revenue sought to invoke the extended period on allegations such as suppression or wilful mis-statement, the notice had to be issued by the Collector. A notice issued by an officer other than the Collector in such circumstances was not in accordance with the statutory requirement, and proceedings founded on such a notice could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The notice and the consequent proceedings were invalid, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: When the statute vests jurisdiction to issue an extended-period duty notice in a specified authority, a notice issued by a different authority is void and cannot support further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
