https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334117 The court dismissed the Writ Appeal, upholding the quashing of the show cause notice by the learned Judge. It reaffirmed that the 90-day period under Regulation 22(1) is mandatory, and the pendency of litigation regarding interim suspension under Regulation 20(2) does not justify the delay in issuing the show cause notice. The court also supported the respondent's right to challenge the notice via a Writ Petition due to the clear statutory violation. en-us Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Aug 2017 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334117 The court dismissed the Writ Appeal, upholding the quashing of the show cause notice by the learned Judge. It reaffirmed that the 90-day period under Regulation 22(1) is mandatory, and the pendency of litigation regarding interim suspension under Regulation 20(2) does not justify the delay in issuing the show cause notice. The court also supported the respondent's right to challenge the notice via a Writ Petition due to the clear statutory violation. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 24 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334117