https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172072 The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the CHA license but upheld the forfeiture of the security deposit, partially allowing the appeal. The appellant's arguments regarding lack of sub-letting and discrepancies in treatment compared to another CHA were considered, leading to the decision. The Tribunal found no evidence of sub-letting and inconsistencies in decisions, resulting in the revocation being overturned but the security deposit forfeiture being maintained for technical violations. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:29:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172072 The Tribunal set aside the revocation of the CHA license but upheld the forfeiture of the security deposit, partially allowing the appeal. The appellant's arguments regarding lack of sub-letting and discrepancies in treatment compared to another CHA were considered, leading to the decision. The Tribunal found no evidence of sub-letting and inconsistencies in decisions, resulting in the revocation being overturned but the security deposit forfeiture being maintained for technical violations. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 22 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172072