https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273294 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the suspension order, upholding the validity of the suspension due to the seriousness of the alleged offence. The court allowed the petitioners to challenge the show cause notice based on jurisdictional error, overruling objections. It determined that the revocation proceedings initiated under regulation 20(1) were valid despite the delay, as the time limit was considered directory. The court clarified that relief could be sought if proceedings were not completed within the stipulated time but denied immediate revocation of the suspension order. The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order vacated, with petitioners granted fifteen days to respond to the show cause notice. en-us Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273294 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the suspension order, upholding the validity of the suspension due to the seriousness of the alleged offence. The court allowed the petitioners to challenge the show cause notice based on jurisdictional error, overruling objections. It determined that the revocation proceedings initiated under regulation 20(1) were valid despite the delay, as the time limit was considered directory. The court clarified that relief could be sought if proceedings were not completed within the stipulated time but denied immediate revocation of the suspension order. The writ petition was dismissed, and the interim order vacated, with petitioners granted fifteen days to respond to the show cause notice. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273294