<?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>2006 (3) TMI 179 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47873</link>
    <description>Repeated opportunities to inspect seized records and take copies were treated as sufficient compliance with the requirement to supply relied upon documents, so no breach of natural justice was established because prejudice was not shown. The Court also reiterated that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an effective statutory appeal exists, and, absent any exceptional ground such as jurisdictional error or clear denial of natural justice, the alternative appellate remedy weighed against interference. On that basis, the adjudication orders were sustained and the writ petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:03:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 179 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47873</link>
      <description>Repeated opportunities to inspect seized records and take copies were treated as sufficient compliance with the requirement to supply relied upon documents, so no breach of natural justice was established because prejudice was not shown. The Court also reiterated that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an effective statutory appeal exists, and, absent any exceptional ground such as jurisdictional error or clear denial of natural justice, the alternative appellate remedy weighed against interference. On that basis, the adjudication orders were sustained and the writ petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>