<?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>2024 (7) TMI 1326 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756106</link>
    <description>The AP HC dismissed a review petition challenging the validity of a second show cause notice issued while the first SCN was pending. The court held that the withdrawal of the first SCN occurred after issuance of the second SCN, which was for a differential amount rather than identical amount. The second SCN was within the 5-year limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Act. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record and noted that questions of fact regarding suppression cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner retained the right to respond to the SCN and raise jurisdictional objections before the adjudicating authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2024 14:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=761868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1326 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756106</link>
      <description>The AP HC dismissed a review petition challenging the validity of a second show cause notice issued while the first SCN was pending. The court held that the withdrawal of the first SCN occurred after issuance of the second SCN, which was for a differential amount rather than identical amount. The second SCN was within the 5-year limitation period under Section 28(4) of the Act. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record and noted that questions of fact regarding suppression cannot be determined in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner retained the right to respond to the SCN and raise jurisdictional objections before the adjudicating authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>