<?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>1995 (7) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44252</link>
    <description>Notices issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act to summon persons, record evidence and require production of documents were not liable to be quashed on the basis of limitation under Section 28, because the impugned notices were not issued under Section 28. As no limitation period is prescribed for Section 108 notices, the challenge to their validity failed and the notices were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:47:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (7) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44252</link>
      <description>Notices issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act to summon persons, record evidence and require production of documents were not liable to be quashed on the basis of limitation under Section 28, because the impugned notices were not issued under Section 28. As no limitation period is prescribed for Section 108 notices, the challenge to their validity failed and the notices were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>