by Tarun Jain†
“The notice is required to state the grounds necessitating the action and the penalty proposed specifically and unambiguously and is also required to adhere to the principles of natural justice”
Section 28 provides a window of five years from the relevant date within which proceedings under the said provision may be initiated. The proceedings so initiated are liable to be ended in accordance with the statutory timelines which stand out in sub-section (9).
As per reports, the case relates to alleged wasteful expenditure of almost Rs 53 crore on the renovation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s official residence.1
The Court granted liberty to the respondent authorities to issue fresh notice, including the detailed reasons and thereafter to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The Delhi High Court held that the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise cannot continue the proceedings for adjudication of the impugned show cause notice, after the lapse of thirteen years.
The Delhi High Court observed that there was an unexplained substantial delay in issuing the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 09-11-2017 and thus, is inexcusable in the eyes of law
Supreme Court held that the CBEC circular was not contrary to the intent of the Central Excise Act and Rules. Thus, the show cause notice is not defective and unenforceable. However, the order of the Commissioner regarding the value of the goods sold to the Assessee’s sister concerns is in consonance with the Court’s earlier judgments and CBEC Circular.
It suffered from non-application of mind and was in violation of mandatory requirement of section 75 (6) of the CGST Act.
Supreme Court: In a special leave petition against the impugned judgment passed by the Bombay High Court, whereby, the Court dismissed the
Armed Forces Tribunal (Lucknow Bench): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of K.R. Shriram and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ. took cognizance of a petition which was filed
Delhi High Court: Jasmeet Singh, J. did not interfere with the impugned show cause notice issued by Delhi Police to a restaurant
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of PS Dinesh and Anant Pamana Hegde, JJ. rejected the appeal filed by Commissioner
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Manmohan and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ., expressed that, merely because there was a delay
by Bishwajit Dubey*, Shatrajit Banerji** and Prafful Goyal***
Calcutta High Court: Md. Nizamuddin, J. allowed a petition which was filed challenging the impugned assessment order under Section 147 read with
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kumar, CJ and Sameer Kureshi, J. allowed the writ petition and set aside the
Delhi High Court: Yashwant Varma, J., held that once a document comes to be duly registered, it becomes a fait accompli. In
Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of Aparesh Kumar Singh and Anubha Rawat Choudhary, JJ., allowed the petition and directed the respondents