https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256551 The Tribunal found that the appellant did not violate Regulations 12, 13(a), 13(d), and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004, and set aside the order revoking the CHA license. The dissenting opinion, however, held that three charges were proved, justifying the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security amount. Due to the disagreement, the matter was referred to the President for the nomination of a third member to determine the proved charges and the adequacy of the punishment. en-us Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:03:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256551 The Tribunal found that the appellant did not violate Regulations 12, 13(a), 13(d), and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004, and set aside the order revoking the CHA license. The dissenting opinion, however, held that three charges were proved, justifying the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security amount. Due to the disagreement, the matter was referred to the President for the nomination of a third member to determine the proved charges and the adequacy of the punishment. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256551