<?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>2023 (7) TMI 1419 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314509</link>
    <description>A contested factual question on when the offence report was received could not be satisfactorily decided in writ jurisdiction, so the court declined to examine the revocation challenge on merits. Because a statutory appeal was available under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy, and all limitation-related contentions arising from the timing of the offence report and show cause notice were kept open for the appellate forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2024 08:23:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 1419 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314509</link>
      <description>A contested factual question on when the offence report was received could not be satisfactorily decided in writ jurisdiction, so the court declined to examine the revocation challenge on merits. Because a statutory appeal was available under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, the petitioner was left to pursue that remedy, and all limitation-related contentions arising from the timing of the offence report and show cause notice were kept open for the appellate forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>