Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC determined that issuing two show cause notices (SCNs) under different subsections of Section 28 for identical factual matrices is impermissible. The impugned SCN under Section 28(4) was issued just six weeks after a Section 28(1) notice concerning similar goods with similar alleged "mis-declaration," constituting an improper change of opinion. The court found the second notice failed to substantiate allegations of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts required under Section 28(4), containing merely an "incantation" of statutory provisions without supporting substance. Furthermore, the respondent's contention that the impugned notice was a "supplementary notice" was rejected, as the Customs Act contemplates issuance under either Section 28(1) or 28(4), not both. Petition allowed.
The HC determined that issuing two show cause notices (SCNs) under different subsections of Section 28 for identical factual matrices is impermissible. The impugned SCN under Section 28(4) was issued just six weeks after a Section 28(1) notice concerning similar goods with similar alleged "mis-declaration," constituting an improper change of opinion. The court found the second notice failed to substantiate allegations of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts required under Section 28(4), containing merely an "incantation" of statutory provisions without supporting substance. Furthermore, the respondent's contention that the impugned notice was a "supplementary notice" was rejected, as the Customs Act contemplates issuance under either Section 28(1) or 28(4), not both. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
