Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Madras High Court considered the issue of personal hearing notice u/s FEMA 1999. The Court held that Rule 4(3) does not require the reasoned opinion to be communicated to the person being proceeded against. Judicial expansion of the Rule for fairness may defeat its purpose. The Court emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority must form an opinion before issuing a show cause notice. The Court referred to previous judgments and stated that providing reasons is not mandated. Writ petitions against show cause or personal hearing notices are generally not entertained u/r Article 226 unless issued by an incompetent authority or tainted with malafide. The Court concluded that Rule 4(3) does not require further procedures beyond forming an opinion, and the petitioner should participate in proceedings as per the Act and Rules.
The Madras High Court considered the issue of personal hearing notice u/s FEMA 1999. The Court held that Rule 4(3) does not require the reasoned opinion to be communicated to the person being proceeded against. Judicial expansion of the Rule for fairness may defeat its purpose. The Court emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority must form an opinion before issuing a show cause notice. The Court referred to previous judgments and stated that providing reasons is not mandated. Writ petitions against show cause or personal hearing notices are generally not entertained u/r Article 226 unless issued by an incompetent authority or tainted with malafide. The Court concluded that Rule 4(3) does not require further procedures beyond forming an opinion, and the petitioner should participate in proceedings as per the Act and Rules.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
