<?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>Jurisdiction Dispute Over Customs Notice: Court Suggests Appellate Resolution Due to Factual Discrepancies in Service Claims.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=76404</link>
    <description>Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Validity Of show-cause notice - The petitioner contended that the impugned show-cause notice and order were without jurisdiction because the Additional Commissioner of Customs, who issued them, was not authorized under the SEZ Act notifications of August 5, 2016. - The High Court observed a discrepancy between the petitioner&#039;s claim of not receiving notices and the impugned order&#039;s assertion that notices were served. This discrepancy led to disputed questions of fact. - As the issue of notice service involved factual disputes, the High Court declined to entertain the petition on this ground, leaving it for the appellate authority to examine during appeal proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2024 09:54:59 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2024 09:54:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Jurisdiction Dispute Over Customs Notice: Court Suggests Appellate Resolution Due to Factual Discrepancies in Service Claims.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=76404</link>
      <description>Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Validity Of show-cause notice - The petitioner contended that the impugned show-cause notice and order were without jurisdiction because the Additional Commissioner of Customs, who issued them, was not authorized under the SEZ Act notifications of August 5, 2016. - The High Court observed a discrepancy between the petitioner&#039;s claim of not receiving notices and the impugned order&#039;s assertion that notices were served. This discrepancy led to disputed questions of fact. - As the issue of notice service involved factual disputes, the High Court declined to entertain the petition on this ground, leaving it for the appellate authority to examine during appeal proceedings.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2024 09:54:59 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=76404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>