<?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>2007 (9) TMI 684 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193132</link>
    <description>Summons and connected letters issued during a pending statutory investigation into possible service tax evasion were held not to be shown as without jurisdiction. Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, authorised the investigation, and the reference to a judicial proceeding under Section 14(3) was confined to attracting the penal consequences of Sections 193 and 228 IPC, not to making the investigating officer the final adjudicator. The writ challenge was therefore premature and untenable because objections on facts could be raised before the investigating authority, and the statutory sequence of investigation, show-cause notice, adjudication, and appeal provided later remedies.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:37:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 684 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193132</link>
      <description>Summons and connected letters issued during a pending statutory investigation into possible service tax evasion were held not to be shown as without jurisdiction. Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, authorised the investigation, and the reference to a judicial proceeding under Section 14(3) was confined to attracting the penal consequences of Sections 193 and 228 IPC, not to making the investigating officer the final adjudicator. The writ challenge was therefore premature and untenable because objections on facts could be raised before the investigating authority, and the statutory sequence of investigation, show-cause notice, adjudication, and appeal provided later remedies.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>