https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117592 A CHA cannot be penalised with licence revocation or forfeiture of security merely on suspicion or on the basis of an employee's or third party's post-clearance misconduct. The Tribunal held that liability must be supported by reliable evidence of knowledge, connivance, active participation, or actionable failure of supervision in the course of the CHA's agency business; mere introduction of persons or the use of forged documents without the CHA's knowledge was insufficient. On that footing, cancellation of the CHA licence was set aside, and the associated forfeiture of the security deposit was also held unsustainable. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117592 A CHA cannot be penalised with licence revocation or forfeiture of security merely on suspicion or on the basis of an employee's or third party's post-clearance misconduct. The Tribunal held that liability must be supported by reliable evidence of knowledge, connivance, active participation, or actionable failure of supervision in the course of the CHA's agency business; mere introduction of persons or the use of forged documents without the CHA's knowledge was insufficient. On that footing, cancellation of the CHA licence was set aside, and the associated forfeiture of the security deposit was also held unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117592