<?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>2019 (1) TMI 499 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373334</link>
    <description>A writ petition may be entertained under Article 226 against a show cause notice where the notice is alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction or an abuse of process, rather than involving only routine factual objections; the preliminary objection to maintainability was rejected. The impugned notice was also held unsustainable because the exemption notifications, earlier ad hoc exemption order and later GST clarification consistently applied a net-quantity basis for the relevant petroleum gases and gaseous hydrocarbons, and the department could not re-characterise that settled treatment after years of accepted practice. The notice was quashed as beyond jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=552420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 499 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373334</link>
      <description>A writ petition may be entertained under Article 226 against a show cause notice where the notice is alleged to be wholly without jurisdiction or an abuse of process, rather than involving only routine factual objections; the preliminary objection to maintainability was rejected. The impugned notice was also held unsustainable because the exemption notifications, earlier ad hoc exemption order and later GST clarification consistently applied a net-quantity basis for the relevant petroleum gases and gaseous hydrocarbons, and the department could not re-characterise that settled treatment after years of accepted practice. The notice was quashed as beyond jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373334</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>