<?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>2019 (7) TMI 204 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382508</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the Order-in-Original, emphasizing the discretionary nature of jurisdiction under Article 226 and the availability of alternative remedies for the petitioner. The court highlighted the need to demonstrate specific circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice, to justify the intervention of the High Court in such cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jul 2019 13:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=577728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 204 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382508</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the Order-in-Original, emphasizing the discretionary nature of jurisdiction under Article 226 and the availability of alternative remedies for the petitioner. The court highlighted the need to demonstrate specific circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice, to justify the intervention of the High Court in such cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>