<?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 1792 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276435</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to a public notice failed because the petitioner could not show a legally sufficient interest and had no trade contracts from China. The Court also noted non-compliance with an earlier interim direction requiring applications to be filed before the second respondent, which weighed against further entertaining the petition. On these facts, the petitioner lacked locus standi, and the writ petition was not entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2018 08:42:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1792 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276435</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to a public notice failed because the petitioner could not show a legally sufficient interest and had no trade contracts from China. The Court also noted non-compliance with an earlier interim direction requiring applications to be filed before the second respondent, which weighed against further entertaining the petition. On these facts, the petitioner lacked locus standi, and the writ petition was not entertained.</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=276435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>