Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1992 (10) TMI 90

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....validated for a further period of one year. It was to expire on 20th of May 1988. 3. Under Regulation 9 at least one of the partners of the petitioner-firm was required to qualify in the written and oral examinations to be conducted by the respondents under the said Regulations within a period of two years from the date of grant of a temporary licence before they could be granted a regular licence. None of the partners of the first petitioner-firm qualified in the examination during this period. The first petitioner-firm however, had an employee who had passed this examination. This qualified employee, however, left the services of the first petitioner-firm on 20th of March 1988. As a result, the respondents issued a Circular dated 27th ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ant Collector of Customs by his letter dated 20th of May 1988 has replied to the letter of 2nd of May 1988 and has stated that after a careful consideration of the request for inclusion of Shri Satishchandra T. Parekh as Manager of the first petitioner-firm, the request was rejected by the Collector of Customs. Thereafter the petitioners addressed a letter dated 25th of May 1988, again setting out all the circumstances and requesting the respondents to approve the appointment of Shri S.T. Parekh as their Manager. The respondents by their reply dated 8th of July 1988 have reiterated that this request was already rejected vide their office letter of 20th of May 1988. The respondents further stated that they were unable to accept the contentio....