<?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>2009 (2) TMI 798 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171872</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant could not challenge the denotification while benefiting from the consent order. The court held that the principles of natural justice were followed, noting the appellant&#039;s implicit consent. The doctrine of approbation and reprobation applied, barring the appellant from contesting the notification. The appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 08:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 798 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171872</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant could not challenge the denotification while benefiting from the consent order. The court held that the principles of natural justice were followed, noting the appellant&#039;s implicit consent. The doctrine of approbation and reprobation applied, barring the appellant from contesting the notification. The appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>