<?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>1985 (8) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42722</link>
    <description>The appeal challenged the summary dismissal of Misc. Petition No. 1713 of 1979 by the learned single Judge, where the petitioners sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a refund from the customs department. The Court found that the remedy for the petitioners lay in a suit rather than a writ petition, leading to the dismissal of the Misc. Petition. Additionally, the Court addressed issues related to the legality of the show cause notice, time-barred customs duty demands, adjustment of deposited amounts, locus standi of petitioners, liability of the State Trading Corporation, and directed the 4th respondent to deposit certain amounts for subsequent withdrawal. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was set for further proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:33:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (8) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42722</link>
      <description>The appeal challenged the summary dismissal of Misc. Petition No. 1713 of 1979 by the learned single Judge, where the petitioners sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a refund from the customs department. The Court found that the remedy for the petitioners lay in a suit rather than a writ petition, leading to the dismissal of the Misc. Petition. Additionally, the Court addressed issues related to the legality of the show cause notice, time-barred customs duty demands, adjustment of deposited amounts, locus standi of petitioners, liability of the State Trading Corporation, and directed the 4th respondent to deposit certain amounts for subsequent withdrawal. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was set for further proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>