<?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>1965 (7) TMI 56 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160496</link>
    <description>Retrospective recognition of a dissolved firm&#039;s agreed quota division allows partners to claim import entitlement for the relevant earlier licensing period where the administrative scheme treats approval as acknowledgment rather than the source of rights. The Supreme Court majority held that delayed recognition did not invalidate licence applications merely because the division had not yet been formally recognised, particularly where refusal rested on the later approval date. A subsequent policy statement indicating nil availability did not bar an earlier-period licence unless a prohibition or restriction had been imposed through an order published in the Official Gazette. The appeals failed; the dissent treated approval as a non-retrospective condition precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (7) TMI 56 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160496</link>
      <description>Retrospective recognition of a dissolved firm&#039;s agreed quota division allows partners to claim import entitlement for the relevant earlier licensing period where the administrative scheme treats approval as acknowledgment rather than the source of rights. The Supreme Court majority held that delayed recognition did not invalidate licence applications merely because the division had not yet been formally recognised, particularly where refusal rested on the later approval date. A subsequent policy statement indicating nil availability did not bar an earlier-period licence unless a prohibition or restriction had been imposed through an order published in the Official Gazette. The appeals failed; the dissent treated approval as a non-retrospective condition precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>