Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.42 seconds)Section 73 in Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Khem Chand vs The Union Of India And Others on 13 December, 1957
25. Expressions like "a reasonable opportunity of making
objection" or "a reasonable opportunity of defence" have
come up for consideration before this Court in the context of
several statutes. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Khem
Chand v. Union of India, of course in the context of service
jurisprudence, reiterated certain principles which are
applicable in the present case also.
Section 67 in Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Larson And Toubro Ltd. vs Cce, Chennai on 22 June, 2006
16. It is also true that acts of fraud or suppression are to be
specifically pleaded so that it is clear and explicit to the noticee to
reply thereto effectively [See Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. CCE, (2007) 9
SCC 617 (para 14)].
M/S Nkas Services Private Limited vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 October, 2021
18. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of
this Court and we fully agree with the law laid down in the case of NKAS
Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and, accordingly, it is held that the Adjudication
Order is non est in the eye of law, as the same has been passed without
issuance of proper show cause notice and, thus, amounts to violation of
principles of natural justice.
Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu & Ors vs State Of A. P. & Ors on 2 September, 2003
(e) Order dated 28.04.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High
Court in the case of KorrapathiJanardhana Naidu Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh reported in (2021) 35 TAXLOC.COM 100 (AP). (PARA 7 & 8)
Enprocon Enterprise Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax on 8 January, 2020
(h) Order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the case of Enprocom Enterprises
Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax reported in 2020-
VIL-25-GUJ (PARA-48)
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd vs Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha on 19 November, 1979
(i) Order dated 14.07.2020 passed in the case of CeraSanitaryware
Limited Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2020-VIL-310-GUJ (PARA-6)
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. And Ors on 15 June, 2007
Further in the case of CCE Vs. Brindavan
Beverages (P) Ltd. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 388 relied upon by the
petitioner, the Apex Court at para-14 of the judgment has held that if
the allegations in the show-cause notice are not specific and are on
the contrary, vague, lack details and/or unintelligible i.e. its sufficient
to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the
allegations indicated in the show-cause notice. We do not agree with
the contention of the respondent that the notice ought not to be struck
9
down if in substance it contains the matters which a notice must
contain. In order to proceed under the provisions of Section 74 of the
Act, the specific ingredients enumerated thereunder have to be clearly
asserted in the notice so that the noticee has an opportunity to explain
and defend himself.