<?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>2021 (2) TMI 910 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404418</link>
    <description>An adjudicatory show cause notice cannot be revived after a prolonged unexplained hiatus, particularly where it was kept in the call book without intimation to the noticee. The Gujarat HC noted that no satisfactory explanation was given for the long delay in taking up adjudication after remand, and that indefinite suspension of proceedings is not justified where the statute does not authorise such delay. It further held that serious prejudice arose because the factory had been closed and sold, registration surrendered, and relevant records and witnesses were no longer readily available. The impugned communication and notice were therefore quashed as unlawful and arbitrary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2021 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637148" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 910 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404418</link>
      <description>An adjudicatory show cause notice cannot be revived after a prolonged unexplained hiatus, particularly where it was kept in the call book without intimation to the noticee. The Gujarat HC noted that no satisfactory explanation was given for the long delay in taking up adjudication after remand, and that indefinite suspension of proceedings is not justified where the statute does not authorise such delay. It further held that serious prejudice arose because the factory had been closed and sold, registration surrendered, and relevant records and witnesses were no longer readily available. The impugned communication and notice were therefore quashed as unlawful and arbitrary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>