<?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 (3) TMI 1137 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182038</link>
    <description>Candidates who had completed the written stage of the Customs House Agents licensing process under the old regime could not be denied certification merely because the oral examination was held after the revised regulations came into force. The decisive factor was that the selection process had substantially progressed under the earlier regulatory framework, and the later postponement of the oral test was fortuitous rather than legally material. The Court also relied on parity, noting that similarly placed candidates in another Commissionerate had been granted certificates despite result processing occurring after the new regulations. On that basis, the petitioners were entitled to issuance of the certificate under Regulation 8.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 May 2017 10:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1137 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182038</link>
      <description>Candidates who had completed the written stage of the Customs House Agents licensing process under the old regime could not be denied certification merely because the oral examination was held after the revised regulations came into force. The decisive factor was that the selection process had substantially progressed under the earlier regulatory framework, and the later postponement of the oral test was fortuitous rather than legally material. The Court also relied on parity, noting that similarly placed candidates in another Commissionerate had been granted certificates despite result processing occurring after the new regulations. On that basis, the petitioners were entitled to issuance of the certificate under Regulation 8.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>