<?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>Natural justice in competition proceedings requires notice before departing from the Director General&#039;s findings; order set aside and remanded.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99533</link>
    <description>Natural justice required the competition regulator to issue an action-oriented notice before departing from the Director General&#039;s findings. The Tribunal held that the Commission&#039;s directions on disclosure of pricing or discounting policy and on end-use restrictions varied from the investigation report, yet no effective opportunity was given to rebut that proposed disagreement. That omission deprived the appellant of a fair hearing and vitiated the order to that extent. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after due notice, without any merits finding being affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 07:08:04 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 07:08:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Natural justice in competition proceedings requires notice before departing from the Director General&#039;s findings; order set aside and remanded.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99533</link>
      <description>Natural justice required the competition regulator to issue an action-oriented notice before departing from the Director General&#039;s findings. The Tribunal held that the Commission&#039;s directions on disclosure of pricing or discounting policy and on end-use restrictions varied from the investigation report, yet no effective opportunity was given to rebut that proposed disagreement. That omission deprived the appellant of a fair hearing and vitiated the order to that extent. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after due notice, without any merits finding being affirmed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 07:08:04 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>