Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable because the show-cause notice did not plead or disclose the requisite jurisdictional ingredients (such as suppression or wilful misstatement) and lacked supporting material. Limitation was treated as a jurisdictional fact, requiring satisfaction of both factual and legal elements before extended limitation could be assumed. Since the notice was cryptic, non-speaking, and unreasoned, the authority could not lawfully assume jurisdiction by invoking Section 73(1). Consequently, the show-cause notice and all proceedings pursuant to it were quashed, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held unsustainable because the show-cause notice did not plead or disclose the requisite jurisdictional ingredients (such as suppression or wilful misstatement) and lacked supporting material. Limitation was treated as a jurisdictional fact, requiring satisfaction of both factual and legal elements before extended limitation could be assumed. Since the notice was cryptic, non-speaking, and unreasoned, the authority could not lawfully assume jurisdiction by invoking Section 73(1). Consequently, the show-cause notice and all proceedings pursuant to it were quashed, and the petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
