https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110456 A jurisdictional challenge based on the 1958 notification failed because the impugned show-cause notice concerned transfers made in 1974-75, when the 1958 notification as amended in 1974 was in force; the 1977 notification was therefore irrelevant and no retrospective operation arose. The objection that liability could be avoided because the petitioner was not permanently residing in India also failed, as the authorities had concurrently found as a matter of fact that he had been continuously residing in India since 1973 and was permanently residing there at the relevant time. In the absence of any error of law or jurisdictional infirmity, writ interference was not warranted. en-us Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:42:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110456 A jurisdictional challenge based on the 1958 notification failed because the impugned show-cause notice concerned transfers made in 1974-75, when the 1958 notification as amended in 1974 was in force; the 1977 notification was therefore irrelevant and no retrospective operation arose. The objection that liability could be avoided because the petitioner was not permanently residing in India also failed, as the authorities had concurrently found as a matter of fact that he had been continuously residing in India since 1973 and was permanently residing there at the relevant time. In the absence of any error of law or jurisdictional infirmity, writ interference was not warranted. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110456