<?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 (9) TMI 1089 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177666</link>
    <description>An adjudication notice under the foreign exchange regime was treated as premature where the adjudicating authority issued a hearing notice before first considering the reply to the show cause notice. The governing procedure required the authority to apply its mind to the response and decide whether proceedings should continue before fixing appearance. Because the matter had earlier been adjourned sine die for denial of inspection of relied upon documents, and a draft order was already on the departmental file, the process was found unfair and biased. The notice and later proceedings were held incapable of standing, and the authority had to reconsider the reply afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 16:55:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 1089 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177666</link>
      <description>An adjudication notice under the foreign exchange regime was treated as premature where the adjudicating authority issued a hearing notice before first considering the reply to the show cause notice. The governing procedure required the authority to apply its mind to the response and decide whether proceedings should continue before fixing appearance. Because the matter had earlier been adjourned sine die for denial of inspection of relied upon documents, and a draft order was already on the departmental file, the process was found unfair and biased. The notice and later proceedings were held incapable of standing, and the authority had to reconsider the reply afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177666</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>