This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
An inquiry to be continued by Adjudicating Authority as per Notification dt. 27.9.2018 was in vogue and not under superseded notification
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Auro Logistics Ltd Vs Assistant Director (SRO) (Madras High Court)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Courts
- All High Courts, Madras High Court
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Auro Logistics Ltd Vs Assistant Director (SRO) (Madras High Court)
An inquiry to be continued by Adjudicating Authority as per Notification dt. 27.9.2018 was in vogue and not under superseded notification
Conclusion: The contention of assessee-company that the person issuing the show cause notice i.e., Special Director was “the” Adjudicating Authority and all proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice issued by him should be continued and concluded by the person issuing the show cause notice and no other was rejected. Show cause notice issued under Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2000 before ...
Author Info
