<?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>2017 (4) TMI 1662 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465041</link>
    <description>Release of seized gold articles was not ordered directly; the Kerala HC directed the first respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on the petitioner&#039;s representations for redemption after notice to the petitioners and the third respondent. The consideration and decision were required to be completed within three months from receipt of the judgment copy. The writ petition was thus disposed of on that limited procedural direction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2025 21:24:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868759" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1662 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465041</link>
      <description>Release of seized gold articles was not ordered directly; the Kerala HC directed the first respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on the petitioner&#039;s representations for redemption after notice to the petitioners and the third respondent. The consideration and decision were required to be completed within three months from receipt of the judgment copy. The writ petition was thus disposed of on that limited procedural direction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>