Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
A forensic audit was conducted by Grant Thornton LLP at the request of the respondent-bank. The audit led to the withdrawal of the ‘red flagging’ of the company’s account.
The Court held that a writ petition against a show-cause notice is generally not maintainable, as established in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28.
The Court stated that since the only allegation against the entity was that it was found to be non-existent, it was at liberty to furnish documents and material to support its contention that it continues to be a valid tax entity.
The Delhi High Court emphasised that if the relevant documents are not provided to a party, the whole procedure of issuance of Show Cause Notice would be reduced to an empty formality.
The petitioner, a practicing advocate, who was expected to maintain decorum placed comments in the chat box during the proceedings via video conferencing against the sitting judge and the proceedings being taken up by the Court.
The High Court found the cause of action to be untenable as the petitioners were already accused in a similar case.
By the interim order, the Supreme Court had restrained the NCDRC from taking any coercive steps against Ireo Grace Realtech
“The opportunity to the petitioner to file a reply to the show cause notice was therefore a mere eye wash, and nothing more.”
The NCLAT held that the CoC had the jurisdiction to decide on liquidation as per Section 33(2) and its explanation, even before completing all steps for resolution.
Allahabad High Court noted that the penalty order does not appear to bring out any conduct of the petitioner as may indicate or establish collusion between the petitioner and the importing dealer.
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 80
“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