<?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>2020 (9) TMI 1182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295477</link>
    <description>A request for a certified copy of the specified order was found justified, and the respondent was directed to furnish the copy at the earliest. The direction was expressly stated not to revive any limitation period already expired, and the question whether the copy had actually been received was left open for independent proof before the appropriate forum. The petitioner was therefore treated as entitled to the certified copy sought.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2021 10:39:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=646020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 1182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295477</link>
      <description>A request for a certified copy of the specified order was found justified, and the respondent was directed to furnish the copy at the earliest. The direction was expressly stated not to revive any limitation period already expired, and the question whether the copy had actually been received was left open for independent proof before the appropriate forum. The petitioner was therefore treated as entitled to the certified copy sought.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>