https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353336 The writ challenge to a clarification communication was not entertained because the communication only stated that the adjudicating authority must decide the pending show cause notice independently and without being influenced by the earlier instruction dated 15.04.2013. The Court treated the petition as repetitive, since the dispute had already moved through earlier proceedings and the impugned communication did not curtail the authority's duty to decide the notice in accordance with law. As the communication preserved adjudicatory independence, no separate writ relief was warranted, and the petitioner was left to pursue the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jan 2018 08:59:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353336 The writ challenge to a clarification communication was not entertained because the communication only stated that the adjudicating authority must decide the pending show cause notice independently and without being influenced by the earlier instruction dated 15.04.2013. The Court treated the petition as repetitive, since the dispute had already moved through earlier proceedings and the impugned communication did not curtail the authority's duty to decide the notice in accordance with law. As the communication preserved adjudicatory independence, no separate writ relief was warranted, and the petitioner was left to pursue the show cause notice before the adjudicating authority. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353336