<?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>2021 (12) TMI 1117 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416351</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme for exotic birds and animals in Meghalaya, dismissing the petitioner&#039;s appeal. The scheme allowed immunity against penalties for voluntary disclosure and ownership of exotic species within India. Various High Courts and the Supreme Court affirmed the immunity granted under the scheme, stating that domestic activities related to exotic species did not violate laws. The courts emphasized the role of statutory safeguards and international agreements in preventing illegal smuggling, concluding that seizure of exotic species in domestic areas without proof of illegal importation was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Dec 2021 09:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 1117 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416351</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme for exotic birds and animals in Meghalaya, dismissing the petitioner&#039;s appeal. The scheme allowed immunity against penalties for voluntary disclosure and ownership of exotic species within India. Various High Courts and the Supreme Court affirmed the immunity granted under the scheme, stating that domestic activities related to exotic species did not violate laws. The courts emphasized the role of statutory safeguards and international agreements in preventing illegal smuggling, concluding that seizure of exotic species in domestic areas without proof of illegal importation was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>