https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260261 The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the CHA license but upheld the forfeiture of the security deposit due to the violation of Regulation 13(e) of CHALR 2004. The CHA was allowed to resume business upon furnishing a fresh security deposit after suffering from the license revocation for over four years. The decision aimed to balance punishment with the duration of suffering faced by the CHA, ultimately providing relief by restoring the CHA license while maintaining the forfeiture of the security deposit. en-us Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jan 2016 16:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260261 The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the CHA license but upheld the forfeiture of the security deposit due to the violation of Regulation 13(e) of CHALR 2004. The CHA was allowed to resume business upon furnishing a fresh security deposit after suffering from the license revocation for over four years. The decision aimed to balance punishment with the duration of suffering faced by the CHA, ultimately providing relief by restoring the CHA license while maintaining the forfeiture of the security deposit. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260261