Allocation of registration charges: contractual clause overriding statutory presumption allowed as deduction against capital gain after unrebutted doc...
Expenditure tied to investments yielding exempt income restricted to attributable costs; broader disallowance disallowed and adjustments to WDV and mi...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties an...
Classification of printed technical documents: specific Chapter 49.01 entry prevails, enabling claimed customs exemptions for imported manuals and rep...
Writ jurisdiction may be exercised against show cause notices...
Writ relief against show cause notices is available where jurisdiction is absent and concluded advance rulings cannot be reopened without fresh fraud evidence.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Writ jurisdiction may be exercised against show cause notices where the notice is alleged to be without jurisdiction, pre-determined, or abusive, even if alternative statutory remedies exist. The Court treated the challenge as one to the very assumption of power and rejected objections of prematurity and disputed facts. It further held that advance rulings are binding on the applicant and jurisdictional officer unless law or facts change, and that reopening the same issues requires fresh material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression. As no such material existed and the earlier adjudication had attained finality, the notices under the GST and excise laws were held to be without jurisdiction and quashed.
Writ jurisdiction may be exercised against show cause notices where the notice is alleged to be without jurisdiction, pre-determined, or abusive, even if alternative statutory remedies exist. The Court treated the challenge as one to the very assumption of power and rejected objections of prematurity and disputed facts. It further held that advance rulings are binding on the applicant and jurisdictional officer unless law or facts change, and that reopening the same issues requires fresh material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression. As no such material existed and the earlier adjudication had attained finality, the notices under the GST and excise laws were held to be without jurisdiction and quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
