<?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>Show cause notices under TVAT s.77 quashed for unreasonable delay, mala fides and violation of constitutional protections</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94584</link>
    <description>The HC held that, although the TVAT Act, 2004 prescribes no express limitation for issuance of show cause notices under s.77, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. Issuance of SCNs in 2023 for alleged violations between 2013-2018, triggered only after the petitioner sought refund of its security deposit, was found to be inordinate, arbitrary, and actuated by mala fides. The HC ruled that the prolonged, unexplained delay rendered the proceedings without jurisdiction and violative of Arts. 14 and 265 of the Constitution, as an assessee cannot be subjected to an indefinite threat of penalty. Consequently, the impugned SCNs and penalty orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed in favour of the transporter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:26 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Show cause notices under TVAT s.77 quashed for unreasonable delay, mala fides and violation of constitutional protections</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94584</link>
      <description>The HC held that, although the TVAT Act, 2004 prescribes no express limitation for issuance of show cause notices under s.77, such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. Issuance of SCNs in 2023 for alleged violations between 2013-2018, triggered only after the petitioner sought refund of its security deposit, was found to be inordinate, arbitrary, and actuated by mala fides. The HC ruled that the prolonged, unexplained delay rendered the proceedings without jurisdiction and violative of Arts. 14 and 265 of the Constitution, as an assessee cannot be subjected to an indefinite threat of penalty. Consequently, the impugned SCNs and penalty orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed in favour of the transporter.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2025 08:24:26 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>