Separate speaking orders on reopening objections are mandatory; deciding them within reassessment invalidates jurisdiction and precludes revival of st...
Page of 4912
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
521 to 540 of 98239 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Judicial review of the quantum of a FERA penalty permits interference on proportionality grounds only where the sanction is grossly excessive, unduly harsh, or so disproportionate that it shocks the court's conscience. A Tribunal cannot reduce a penalty without demonstrating and giving reasons that this high threshold is met; its reduction was therefore unsustainable. FERA penalty adjudication follows proof of breach of a statutory civil obligation, without requiring mens rea. Absence of criminal intent or monetary gain does not legally justify a reduced penalty. The appellate outcome restored the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority after setting aside the Tribunal's reduction.
Judicial review of the quantum of a FERA penalty permits interference on proportionality grounds only where the sanction is grossly excessive, unduly harsh, or so disproportionate that it shocks the court's conscience. A Tribunal cannot reduce a penalty without demonstrating and giving reasons that this high threshold is met; its reduction was therefore unsustainable. FERA penalty adjudication follows proof of breach of a statutory civil obligation, without requiring mens rea. Absence of criminal intent or monetary gain does not legally justify a reduced penalty. The appellate outcome restored the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority after setting aside the Tribunal's reduction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4912 
