<?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>Writ relief against show cause notices is available where jurisdiction is absent and concluded advance rulings cannot be reopened without fresh fraud evidence.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98982</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction may be exercised against show cause notices where the notice is alleged to be without jurisdiction, pre-determined, or abusive, even if alternative statutory remedies exist. The Court treated the challenge as one to the very assumption of power and rejected objections of prematurity and disputed facts. It further held that advance rulings are binding on the applicant and jurisdictional officer unless law or facts change, and that reopening the same issues requires fresh material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression. As no such material existed and the earlier adjudication had attained finality, the notices under the GST and excise laws were held to be without jurisdiction and quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:26 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Writ relief against show cause notices is available where jurisdiction is absent and concluded advance rulings cannot be reopened without fresh fraud evidence.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98982</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction may be exercised against show cause notices where the notice is alleged to be without jurisdiction, pre-determined, or abusive, even if alternative statutory remedies exist. The Court treated the challenge as one to the very assumption of power and rejected objections of prematurity and disputed facts. It further held that advance rulings are binding on the applicant and jurisdictional officer unless law or facts change, and that reopening the same issues requires fresh material showing fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression. As no such material existed and the earlier adjudication had attained finality, the notices under the GST and excise laws were held to be without jurisdiction and quashed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:26 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>