<?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 (2) TMI 1508 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356087</link>
    <description>The High Court found that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence lacked sufficient evidence to justify freezing the petitioners&#039; bank accounts without a fair adjudicatory process. The Court directed the petitioners to provide detailed information on their export transactions to the DRI, subject to compliance with specified conditions. The freezing orders were quashed, ensuring the petitioners&#039; banking operations remained unaffected, and emphasizing the importance of a transparent adjudication process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2018 17:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510270" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1508 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356087</link>
      <description>The High Court found that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence lacked sufficient evidence to justify freezing the petitioners&#039; bank accounts without a fair adjudicatory process. The Court directed the petitioners to provide detailed information on their export transactions to the DRI, subject to compliance with specified conditions. The freezing orders were quashed, ensuring the petitioners&#039; banking operations remained unaffected, and emphasizing the importance of a transparent adjudication process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>