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>Statutory authority had applied its mind; proceedings were not mere show-cause, writ maintainable and matter remitted</h1> <h3>SIEMENS LTD. Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA</h3> SC held the statutory authority had already applied its mind and determined the appellant's liability, so the proceeding could not be treated as a mere ... Scope of Show cause notice - Determination of liability in the SCN - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the order impugned before the High Court as also the statements made before us in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, we are satisfied that the statutory authority has already applied its mind and has formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appellant. If in passing the order the respondent has already determined the liability of the appellant and the only question which remains for its consideration is quantification thereof, the same does not remain in the realm of a show cause notice. The writ petition, in our opinion, was maintainable. The impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the High Court for its consideration afresh on its own merits. Issues:Interference of High Court in demand for payment of cess under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Analysis:The case involved a multi-location company paying cess for goods supplied from its factory under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The company questioned a demand for cess on supplies made to Navi Mumbai parties from its factory in Kalwe, claiming no jurisdictional fact existed. The High Court refused to interfere under Article 226, directing the company to file a reply to the show cause notice within two weeks, with no recovery for four weeks if adverse. The company filed a writ petition challenging the notice, arguing that the High Court should have exercised jurisdiction. The respondent corporation contended that the company was liable for cess evasion and needed to cooperate in determining liability under the rules.The Supreme Court considered whether the jurisdictional fact existed for issuing the notice and the maintainability of the writ petition. It noted that even if a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition could be maintainable. The Court emphasized that if the statutory authority had already determined liability, the matter did not remain a mere show cause notice. Citing precedents, the Court held that in such cases, a post-decisional hearing may not serve any fruitful purpose, as the authority had already made up its mind. The Court found that the authority had applied its mind and formed an opinion on the liability of the company, making the writ petition maintainable.As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration on its merits. No costs were awarded in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
