<?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>2025 (2) TMI 147 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765601</link>
    <description>The Madras HC dismissed an appeal challenging a writ petition regarding G card licence entitlement. The respondent had failed the viva voce examination despite passing the written test. The court held that conducting viva voce was illegal as the 2018 Regulation only prescribed educational qualification and written examination requirements. The regulation governing the entire country under Clause-VI did not contemplate viva voce as an examination mode. The court found the appellant lacked jurisdiction to conduct viva voce without regulatory authorization, determining it was implemented to arbitrarily select candidates. The writ court&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2025 08:38:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=795428" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 147 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765601</link>
      <description>The Madras HC dismissed an appeal challenging a writ petition regarding G card licence entitlement. The respondent had failed the viva voce examination despite passing the written test. The court held that conducting viva voce was illegal as the 2018 Regulation only prescribed educational qualification and written examination requirements. The regulation governing the entire country under Clause-VI did not contemplate viva voce as an examination mode. The court found the appellant lacked jurisdiction to conduct viva voce without regulatory authorization, determining it was implemented to arbitrarily select candidates. The writ court&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>