https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463000 The HC held that the writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 30-6-2014 is not maintainable as the petitioners participated in the proceedings without objection to jurisdiction and are estopped from raising jurisdictional issues after four years. The Court found no jurisdictional defect in the issuance of the show cause notice or in the Commissioner's application of the extended limitation period under Section 11(5) of the Act of 1944, as these involve disputed facts unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226. The Court declined to interfere with the notice but directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioners' contentions on limitation under Sections 11A(4) and 11A(7) strictly in accordance with law. The petitioners were granted four weeks to file their reply, and the matter was disposed. en-us Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Jul 2025 20:41:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463000 The HC held that the writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 30-6-2014 is not maintainable as the petitioners participated in the proceedings without objection to jurisdiction and are estopped from raising jurisdictional issues after four years. The Court found no jurisdictional defect in the issuance of the show cause notice or in the Commissioner's application of the extended limitation period under Section 11(5) of the Act of 1944, as these involve disputed facts unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226. The Court declined to interfere with the notice but directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioners' contentions on limitation under Sections 11A(4) and 11A(7) strictly in accordance with law. The petitioners were granted four weeks to file their reply, and the matter was disposed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463000