<?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>2005 (9) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47679</link>
    <description>Under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, a examination chance is counted only when the candidate is actually given a real opportunity to appear, and mere notification of a date does not amount to availing that chance. An examination fixed for 28-12-2001 that never commenced because question papers were not received could not be treated as a valid chance. The two-year period for availing chances did not bar appellate relief where the applicant had been wrongly denied a permissible opportunity, and the appellate remedy had to retain practical effect. On this reasoning, the petitioner remained entitled to the third chance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:30:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86197" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47679</link>
      <description>Under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, a examination chance is counted only when the candidate is actually given a real opportunity to appear, and mere notification of a date does not amount to availing that chance. An examination fixed for 28-12-2001 that never commenced because question papers were not received could not be treated as a valid chance. The two-year period for availing chances did not bar appellate relief where the applicant had been wrongly denied a permissible opportunity, and the appellate remedy had to retain practical effect. On this reasoning, the petitioner remained entitled to the third chance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>