<?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>2012 (11) TMI 1351 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468702</link>
    <description>A show-cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held time-barred because it was issued beyond one year from the relevant date and the department failed to justify invocation of the five-year extended period. The proviso applies only where non-payment or short payment is linked to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax. On the materials already available, including prior correspondence, suppression was not established and the initial burden to bring the case within the proviso was not discharged. The notice was quashed and the challenge succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 14:47:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 1351 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468702</link>
      <description>A show-cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was held time-barred because it was issued beyond one year from the relevant date and the department failed to justify invocation of the five-year extended period. The proviso applies only where non-payment or short payment is linked to fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade tax. On the materials already available, including prior correspondence, suppression was not established and the initial burden to bring the case within the proviso was not discharged. The notice was quashed and the challenge succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468702</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>