2017 (7) TMI 829

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ertiorari to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 18.06.2004. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the decision in respect of the assessee's group company in W.P.No.17466 of 2008 dated 01.12.2014. Further, it is submitted that the only distinction is that the question was levy of penalty. 4. Recording the said submission, the matter was adjourned today, for the learned Government Advocate to get instructions in the matter. Learned Government Advocate on instructions would submit that the issue is squarely covered by the decision in W.P.No.17466 of 2008. In fact, the said writ petition was disposed of following the earlier order. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is not known as to how the respondents can now initiate action proposing to levy tax on the exempted goods. Further, the show case notice issued by the respondents clearly indicate the intention of the authorities namely to even impose penalty. If really it is only a show cause notice, it would have only sought explanation from the petitioner and not directing that the penalty would be imposed. Therefore, the show cause notice, especially when it was issued in respect of a goods which was already exempted, definitely calls for interference by this Court. 9. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No.9074 of 1996 categorically held that 'appalam' and 'pappad' are one and the same. In fact, at that relev....