Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Challenge to a demand order for alleged fraudulent availment of ITC was rejected as the noticee failed to reply to the show cause notice despite being aware of the investigation, and personal hearing intimations sent to the registered email were held duly served, rendering the non-service plea false. Issuance of a consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years was held permissible, as analysis across "periods" can be necessary to establish a pattern of fraud. On adjudicatory jurisdiction, it was held that in multi-noticee matters jurisdiction lies with the commissionerate linked to the highest proposed demand, consistent with the relevant circular. Writ jurisdiction was declined given disputed facts and availability of statutory appeal; the petition was dismissed with exemplary costs. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.