<?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>2004 (8) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47182</link>
    <description>A temporary Custom House Agent licence cannot be regularised merely because a director or associated person has qualified the prescribed examination; the holder must satisfy the statutory requirement itself before regular licence can issue. Provisions permitting an employee, partner, or director to appear in the examination do not by themselves convert a temporary licence into a regular one. Parity also cannot be claimed on the basis of another licencee&#039;s alleged regularisation, because equality does not require repetition of an erroneous or unlawful order. The petitioner&#039;s request for regularisation therefore failed, while eligible persons could still appear in the ensuing examination under the regulations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:43:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47182</link>
      <description>A temporary Custom House Agent licence cannot be regularised merely because a director or associated person has qualified the prescribed examination; the holder must satisfy the statutory requirement itself before regular licence can issue. Provisions permitting an employee, partner, or director to appear in the examination do not by themselves convert a temporary licence into a regular one. Parity also cannot be claimed on the basis of another licencee&#039;s alleged regularisation, because equality does not require repetition of an erroneous or unlawful order. The petitioner&#039;s request for regularisation therefore failed, while eligible persons could still appear in the ensuing examination under the regulations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>