Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The High Court held that the reassessment notice issued beyond the period of limitation was invalid and without jurisdiction. The impugned notice itself was illegal, and there was no foundation for an assessment order based on a time-barred notice u/s 148. The assessment order passed u/s 148A(d) was also barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149. The inherent illegality of the time-barred notice u/s 148 percolated into the assessment order, rendering it an incurable defect. The Assessing Officer proceeded without jurisdiction, possibly applying the amended provisions of Section 149 erroneously. An order that is void ab initio cannot be saved, and acquiescence to an illegal order cannot render it legal. The Court allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that giving effect to an illegal and void order cannot be permitted.
The High Court held that the reassessment notice issued beyond the period of limitation was invalid and without jurisdiction. The impugned notice itself was illegal, and there was no foundation for an assessment order based on a time-barred notice u/s 148. The assessment order passed u/s 148A(d) was also barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149. The inherent illegality of the time-barred notice u/s 148 percolated into the assessment order, rendering it an incurable defect. The Assessing Officer proceeded without jurisdiction, possibly applying the amended provisions of Section 149 erroneously. An order that is void ab initio cannot be saved, and acquiescence to an illegal order cannot render it legal. The Court allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that giving effect to an illegal and void order cannot be permitted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
