https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81368 The court found in favor of the petitioner, quashing the notices and suspension order issued by respondents 2 and 3 regarding additional import licenses. It held that the 2nd respondent lacked authority to take such actions without following proper procedures. The court affirmed the petitioner's locus standi, rejected objections, and ruled that the new import policy could not retrospectively affect vested rights. It recognized the doctrine of promissory estoppel in favor of the 1st respondent and emphasized the need for authorities to act diligently. The court directed the extension of the license validity, transfer to the petitioner, and awarded costs against respondents 2 and 3. en-us Mon, 22 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:26:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81368 The court found in favor of the petitioner, quashing the notices and suspension order issued by respondents 2 and 3 regarding additional import licenses. It held that the 2nd respondent lacked authority to take such actions without following proper procedures. The court affirmed the petitioner's locus standi, rejected objections, and ruled that the new import policy could not retrospectively affect vested rights. It recognized the doctrine of promissory estoppel in favor of the 1st respondent and emphasized the need for authorities to act diligently. The court directed the extension of the license validity, transfer to the petitioner, and awarded costs against respondents 2 and 3. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 22 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81368