<?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>1975 (11) TMI 176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192829</link>
    <description>Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, adjudication proceedings commence only when the show cause notice is actually served in the manner prescribed by the special rules. A notice sent by registered post does not amount to service if it is returned unserved, because the statutory scheme requires delivery, tender, or, on failure, affixture at the relevant premises; the general presumption under the General Clauses Act cannot override that special requirement. Where no affixture was effected after postal non-service, the proceedings did not begin and the extended retention period for the seized currency was unavailable, making retention beyond one year unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2017 14:34:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=474526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (11) TMI 176 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192829</link>
      <description>Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, adjudication proceedings commence only when the show cause notice is actually served in the manner prescribed by the special rules. A notice sent by registered post does not amount to service if it is returned unserved, because the statutory scheme requires delivery, tender, or, on failure, affixture at the relevant premises; the general presumption under the General Clauses Act cannot override that special requirement. Where no affixture was effected after postal non-service, the proceedings did not begin and the extended retention period for the seized currency was unavailable, making retention beyond one year unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>