https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417008 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that respondent no.5 lacked jurisdiction to issue the demand notices for recovery of Rs. 2,64,21,996. Citing relevant judgments, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the Court directed respondent nos.4 and 5 to refrain from further action on the notices until 31st March, 2022. The Court allowed the respondents to seek a review petition outcome from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with provisions for continuation of interim relief if necessary. Further directions were set for 28th March, 2022. en-us Mon, 03 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:00:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417008 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that respondent no.5 lacked jurisdiction to issue the demand notices for recovery of Rs. 2,64,21,996. Citing relevant judgments, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the Court directed respondent nos.4 and 5 to refrain from further action on the notices until 31st March, 2022. The Court allowed the respondents to seek a review petition outcome from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with provisions for continuation of interim relief if necessary. Further directions were set for 28th March, 2022. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 03 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417008