Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
The HC held the revocation/penalty proceeding against the petitioner time-barred and quashed, directing that Regulation 17(1) CBLR, 2018 requires initiation within 90 days from receipt of an official offence report; the 2018 Regulations expressly define "offence report," which must emanate from an official source and need not follow any particular format. The respondent/licensing authority bore the burden to prove when its office received the offence report or prohibitory order but failed to do so and did not identify the triggering offence report or produce supporting material. Consequently the impugned proceeding was barred by limitation and the writ petition was allowed.
The HC held the revocation/penalty proceeding against the petitioner time-barred and quashed, directing that Regulation 17(1) CBLR, 2018 requires initiation within 90 days from receipt of an official offence report; the 2018 Regulations expressly define "offence report," which must emanate from an official source and need not follow any particular format. The respondent/licensing authority bore the burden to prove when its office received the offence report or prohibitory order but failed to do so and did not identify the triggering offence report or produce supporting material. Consequently the impugned proceeding was barred by limitation and the writ petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
