TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had any vested or accrued right under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 to insist on the continuation of seven chances in the written examination and two chances in the oral examination, and whether the corresponding restrictions in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 were liable to be struck down.
Analysis: The petitioner relied on the doctrine of vested rights and on the savings principle under Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to contend that the earlier regulatory regime had conferred enforceable rights to multiple attempts. The Court held that no such vested right had accrued because the petitioner had not cleared the examination while the 2013 Regulations were in force. The 2018 Regulations were framed in supersession of the earlier regulations and operated prospectively. A mere facility or opportunity under an earlier regulation does not crystallise into a vested right preventing the competent authority from lawfully revising the examination scheme, including the number of attempts and the mode of interview.
Conclusion: The challenge to the 2018 Regulations failed. The Court held that the petitioner had no vested or accrued right to insist on seven written attempts or two oral attempts, and that the impugned regulatory changes were not arbitrary or unconstitutional.
TaxTMI 
