https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251037 The court set aside the suspension order dated 12.10.2011 as confirmed on 24.1.2012, ruling it violated CHALR 2004 provisions by not complying with Regulation 20(2). The judgment emphasized the necessity of immediate action within 15 days of receiving a report for suspensions, ensuring procedural fairness and the right to a proper defense. Orders dated 30.01.2013 and 07.11.2013 were deemed unsustainable, following a comparison with a similar case where non-compliance led to order reversals. The decision prioritized adherence to legal regulations and due process in inquiries, underscoring the significance of procedural fairness and timely actions. en-us Tue, 06 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251037 The court set aside the suspension order dated 12.10.2011 as confirmed on 24.1.2012, ruling it violated CHALR 2004 provisions by not complying with Regulation 20(2). The judgment emphasized the necessity of immediate action within 15 days of receiving a report for suspensions, ensuring procedural fairness and the right to a proper defense. Orders dated 30.01.2013 and 07.11.2013 were deemed unsustainable, following a comparison with a similar case where non-compliance led to order reversals. The decision prioritized adherence to legal regulations and due process in inquiries, underscoring the significance of procedural fairness and timely actions. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251037