<?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>2014 (9) TMI 463 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251437</link>
    <description>Cancellation or refusal to renew statutory registration without the hearing mandated by the governing law was held unsustainable in writ jurisdiction. The court held that breach of natural justice, particularly the denial of a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing, justified interference despite the availability of an alternative remedy because the action affected the right to carry on business. It also noted that the earlier renewal granted during pending proceedings negatived the claim that the original cancellation had automatically revived. The impugned refusal was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 08:28:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 463 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251437</link>
      <description>Cancellation or refusal to renew statutory registration without the hearing mandated by the governing law was held unsustainable in writ jurisdiction. The court held that breach of natural justice, particularly the denial of a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing, justified interference despite the availability of an alternative remedy because the action affected the right to carry on business. It also noted that the earlier renewal granted during pending proceedings negatived the claim that the original cancellation had automatically revived. The impugned refusal was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>