<?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>Petition allowed; second show cause notice quashed as void for lack of jurisdiction and barred by limitation under Section 11A(11)(a)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93969</link>
    <description>HC allowed the petition and quashed the second show cause notice dated 15.09.2005, holding it void for want of jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The court reasoned that the revenue could not initiate a fresh proceeding to invoke a purportedly changed law after the Tribunal had earlier set aside the original demand arising from the SCN dated 02.04.1998, and that permitting multiple proceedings for the same alleged infringement would contravene settled tax-law principles analogous to res judicata. The HC further held that Section 11A(11)(a) imposes a requirement of reasonable time to conclude proceedings, no satisfactory explanation was offered for delay beyond six months from 19.12.2016, and reliance on the Supreme Court decision was distinguishable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:28 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=862931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Petition allowed; second show cause notice quashed as void for lack of jurisdiction and barred by limitation under Section 11A(11)(a)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93969</link>
      <description>HC allowed the petition and quashed the second show cause notice dated 15.09.2005, holding it void for want of jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The court reasoned that the revenue could not initiate a fresh proceeding to invoke a purportedly changed law after the Tribunal had earlier set aside the original demand arising from the SCN dated 02.04.1998, and that permitting multiple proceedings for the same alleged infringement would contravene settled tax-law principles analogous to res judicata. The HC further held that Section 11A(11)(a) imposes a requirement of reasonable time to conclude proceedings, no satisfactory explanation was offered for delay beyond six months from 19.12.2016, and reliance on the Supreme Court decision was distinguishable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 08:37:28 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>