CHA security forfeiture cannot stand independently when licence revocation is not upheld, tribunal applies binding precedent.

Forfeiture of a CHA security deposit cannot be sustained independently where revocation of the CHA licence is not upheld. The Tribunal treated forfeiture under the licensing regulations as consequential to revocation, and applied the binding majority view, later affirmed by the High Court, to hold that once revocation fails, standalone forfeiture also falls. The contrary authorities relied on by Revenue were not followed. The forfeiture order was set aside and the appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether forfeiture of the security deposit could be sustained when revocation of the CHA licence was not upheld.

Analysis: The forfeiture of security under the CHA licensing regulations was treated as consequential to revocation of the licence. A majority view of the Tribunal, later affirmed by the High Court and followed as binding precedent, was applied to hold that where revocation itself cannot stand, standalone forfeiture of security does not survive. The contrary authorities cited by the Revenue were not followed in view of the binding nature of the earlier majority decision.

Conclusion: The forfeiture of the security amount was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned forfeiture order was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Forfeiture of security under the CHA licensing regulations is inseparable from an order of revocation of licence and cannot be sustained independently when revocation is not upheld.

---