<?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 (10) TMI 1297 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290103</link>
    <description>Where compliance with an earlier disclosure order is disputed, the court may implead the enforcement agency in possession of the remaining documents as a necessary party so the alleged non-compliance can be verified. The registry is directed to amend the cause-title accordingly, and the added respondent is required to file a counter specifically addressing compliance with the earlier order and the other averments in the writ petition within two weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2020 20:17:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621772" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (10) TMI 1297 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290103</link>
      <description>Where compliance with an earlier disclosure order is disputed, the court may implead the enforcement agency in possession of the remaining documents as a necessary party so the alleged non-compliance can be verified. The registry is directed to amend the cause-title accordingly, and the added respondent is required to file a counter specifically addressing compliance with the earlier order and the other averments in the writ petition within two weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>