<?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>2010 (10) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205983</link>
    <description>A show-cause notice and consequential cancellation of an exporter&#039;s registration under the MPEDA Rules were treated as invalid because the notice disclosed a concluded view rather than a genuine opportunity to respond. The Court noted that a person proceeded against must receive a real chance to answer allegations, and a quasi-judicial authority must keep an open mind at the initiation stage; prejudice in the notice makes the proceeding an empty formality. The cancellation order was also criticised as non-speaking and unsupported by adequate reasons or consideration of the reply. The defective notice and cancellation were quashed, and the registration was restored, with liberty to begin fresh proceedings in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179483" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205983</link>
      <description>A show-cause notice and consequential cancellation of an exporter&#039;s registration under the MPEDA Rules were treated as invalid because the notice disclosed a concluded view rather than a genuine opportunity to respond. The Court noted that a person proceeded against must receive a real chance to answer allegations, and a quasi-judicial authority must keep an open mind at the initiation stage; prejudice in the notice makes the proceeding an empty formality. The cancellation order was also criticised as non-speaking and unsupported by adequate reasons or consideration of the reply. The defective notice and cancellation were quashed, and the registration was restored, with liberty to begin fresh proceedings in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>