<?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 (8) TMI 1081 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188300</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court set aside the blacklisting order due to lack of specific mention in the show cause notice, deeming it against principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the necessity of specifying proposed action in the notice to enable a proper defense. Non-mentioning of blacklisting was held to cause prejudice, as it deprived the appellant of addressing such a severe penalty. The order was quashed, allowing respondents to take action following procedural requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 10:24:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (8) TMI 1081 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188300</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court set aside the blacklisting order due to lack of specific mention in the show cause notice, deeming it against principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the necessity of specifying proposed action in the notice to enable a proper defense. Non-mentioning of blacklisting was held to cause prejudice, as it deprived the appellant of addressing such a severe penalty. The order was quashed, allowing respondents to take action following procedural requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188300</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>