<?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>2018 (1) TMI 879 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354143</link>
    <description>A show cause notice under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 was issued beyond the prescribed ninety-day period counted from receipt of the offence report. The Delhi High Court treated that time limit as mandatory, following earlier coordinate bench rulings, and held that breach of it rendered the notice invalid. Because the notice was time-barred, the consequential suspension order could not be sustained and became ineffective and infructuous. The court also viewed the proposed amendment to the definition of &quot;offence report&quot; as consistent with the same construction. The challenge succeeded on limitation alone.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2018 11:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 879 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354143</link>
      <description>A show cause notice under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 was issued beyond the prescribed ninety-day period counted from receipt of the offence report. The Delhi High Court treated that time limit as mandatory, following earlier coordinate bench rulings, and held that breach of it rendered the notice invalid. Because the notice was time-barred, the consequential suspension order could not be sustained and became ineffective and infructuous. The court also viewed the proposed amendment to the definition of &quot;offence report&quot; as consistent with the same construction. The challenge succeeded on limitation alone.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354143</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>