<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (3) TMI 238 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84208</link>
    <description>A show-cause notice in adjudication was not quashed where the issuing officers were statutorily empowered to act as adjudicating officers, and the omission to label them expressly in the notice did not create a jurisdictional defect. Service by registered post at the correct address was valid even though acknowledgment was signed by the petitioner&#039;s wife, as the rules did not require personal receipt by the addressee. Alleged non-supply of annexures did not vitiate the proceedings at the show-cause stage because the relied-upon originals were available for inspection and no prejudice was shown. The HC therefore upheld the notices and declined interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:24:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 238 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84208</link>
      <description>A show-cause notice in adjudication was not quashed where the issuing officers were statutorily empowered to act as adjudicating officers, and the omission to label them expressly in the notice did not create a jurisdictional defect. Service by registered post at the correct address was valid even though acknowledgment was signed by the petitioner&#039;s wife, as the rules did not require personal receipt by the addressee. Alleged non-supply of annexures did not vitiate the proceedings at the show-cause stage because the relied-upon originals were available for inspection and no prejudice was shown. The HC therefore upheld the notices and declined interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>