News Update

Maneka Gandhi declares assets worth Rs 97 Cr and files nomination papers from SultanpurGlobal Debt & Fiscal Silhouette rising! Do Elections contribute to fiscal slippages?ISRO study reveals possibility of water ice in polar cratersGST - Statutory requirement to carry the necessary documents should not be made redundant - Mistake committed by appellant is not extending e-way bill after the expiry, despite such liberty being granted under the Rules attracts penalty: HCBiden says migration has been good for US economyGST - Tax paid under wrong head of IGST instead of CGST/SGST - 'Relevant Date' for refund would be the date when tax is paid under the correct head: HCUS says NO to Rafah operation unless humanitarian plan is in place + Colombia snaps off ties with IsraelGST - Petitioner was given no opportunity to object to retrospective cancellation of registration - Order is also bereft of any details: HCMay Day protests in Paris & Istanbul; hundreds arrestedGST - Proper officer should have at least considered the reply on merits before forming an opinion - Ex facie, proper officer has not applied his mind: HCSaudi fitness instructor jailed for social media post - Amnesty International seeks releaseGST - A Rs.17.90 crores demand confirmed on Kendriya Bhandar by observing that reply is insufficient - Non-application of mind is clearly written all over the order: HCDelhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftGST - Neither the SCN nor the order spell the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, therefore, they are set aside: HCIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemST - Appellant was performing statutory functions as mandated by EPF & MP Act, and the Constitution of India, as per Board's Circular 96/7/2007-ST , services provided under Statutory obligations are not taxable: CESTATKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamI-T - Scrutiny assessment order cannot be assailed where assessee confuses it with order passed pursuant to invocation of revisionary power u/s 263: HCHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningI-T - Assessment order invalidated where passed in rushed manner to avoid being hit by impending end of limitation period: HCColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashI-T - Additions framed on account of bogus purchases merits being restricted to profit element embedded therein, where AO has not doubted sales made out of such purchases: HCIndia to host prestigious 46th Antarctic Treaty Consultative MeetingI-T - Miscellaneous Application before ITAT delayed by 1279 days without any just causes or bona fide; no relief for assessee: HCAdani Port & SEZ secures AAA RatingI-T - Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC on account of investment made in REC Bonds, provided both investments were made within period of six months as prescribed u/s 54EC: ITATNominations for Padma Awards 2025 beginsI-T - PCIT cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 when there is no case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of AO: ITATMissile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDOI-T - If purchases & corresponding sales were duly matched, it cannot be said that same were made out of disclosed sources of income: ITATViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockI-T - Reopening of assessment is invalid as while recording reasons for reopening of assessment, AO has not thoroughly examined materials available in his own record : ITAT
 
Cus - Brokers Licencing Regulations - Under Regulation 20(1), notice to be issued within 90 days from date of receipt of offence report - SCN issued beyond 90 days is invalid and is quashed: HC

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, JULY 01, 2015: THE petitioner has filed a Writ Petition, challenging the show cause notice dated 05.03.2015 issued by the respondent, in and by which, the respondent has called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence issued to the petitioner should not be revoked and the security deposited by them should not be forfeited or penalty should not be imposed upon them under Regulation 18 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, for their failure to comply with the provisions of the Regulations 2013.

Challenging, the impugned show cause notice, the Petitioner contended that the impugned show cause notice cannot be sustained since it has been issued by the respondent in violation of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20(1) of CBLR, 2013, which insisted that the show cause notice should be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report from the Investigating Agency. It was pointed out that the impugned show cause notice has been issued on 05.03.2015, after expiry of 3 years from the date of alleged offence report of the SIIB. It was also contended that the petitioner has not violated any of the regulations and it is not appropriate on the part of the respondent, in not entertaining the renewal application which has been filed by the petitioner as early as on 09.01.2015.

After hearing both sides, the High Court quashed the impugned Show Cause Notice by holding that:

On a perusal of Regulation 22, it is explicit that the show cause notice under Regulation 20(1) is required to be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report as prescribed under Regulation 22. In the present case, the offence report was received on 29.08.2012 and the show cause notice was issued on 05.03.2015, by which, it is clearly revealed that it was issued beyond the period stipulated in Regulation 22(1). Therefore, when the impugned show cause notice has been issued beyond the statutory period, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the same cannot be sustained for want of jurisdiction.

(See 2015-TIOL-1524-HC-MAD-CUS)


POST YOUR COMMENTS