<?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>1959 (12) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90566</link>
    <description>Cancellation of an import licence obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is a valid regulatory restriction where the licensee must receive a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Clause 9(a) of the Imports Control Order, 1955 was upheld because its cancellation power was confined to licences procured on a false basis, while clause 10 required a prior hearing. A show-cause notice, stated cancellation ground and personal hearing were considered sufficient on the overall facts, despite no further particulars or document inspection being provided. The majority found compliance with natural justice and sustained the cancellation; the dissent considered particulars and document access necessary for an effective hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 17:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1959 (12) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90566</link>
      <description>Cancellation of an import licence obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is a valid regulatory restriction where the licensee must receive a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Clause 9(a) of the Imports Control Order, 1955 was upheld because its cancellation power was confined to licences procured on a false basis, while clause 10 required a prior hearing. A show-cause notice, stated cancellation ground and personal hearing were considered sufficient on the overall facts, despite no further particulars or document inspection being provided. The majority found compliance with natural justice and sustained the cancellation; the dissent considered particulars and document access necessary for an effective hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90566</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>