<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (12) TMI 811 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336166</link>
    <description>Relevant material does not become unusable merely because it was gathered through an audit later questioned as unauthorised; the court held that relevance, not the manner of procurement alone, governs admissibility, so the challenge to the show-cause notice on that basis failed. The Principal Commissioner who issued the notice was not shown to lack statutory authority, as administrative assignment of audit work did not divest the officer of primary power to issue the notice, so the jurisdiction objection also failed. The limitation plea raised a mixed question of fact and law and was therefore not decided at the writ stage, leaving it to the competent authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2017 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451768" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 811 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336166</link>
      <description>Relevant material does not become unusable merely because it was gathered through an audit later questioned as unauthorised; the court held that relevance, not the manner of procurement alone, governs admissibility, so the challenge to the show-cause notice on that basis failed. The Principal Commissioner who issued the notice was not shown to lack statutory authority, as administrative assignment of audit work did not divest the officer of primary power to issue the notice, so the jurisdiction objection also failed. The limitation plea raised a mixed question of fact and law and was therefore not decided at the writ stage, leaving it to the competent authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336166</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>