https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395141 Where a party's rights in an SEZ plot had already been lawfully extinguished through sale and possession under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Gujarat High Court held that the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 suspension and transfer procedure was not required before recognising the auction purchaser as co-developer. Section 10 and Rule 2(s) were inapplicable because the approval merely reflected the changed title and possession, rather than altering an existing co-developer arrangement. The Board was therefore justified in approving the auction purchaser, and no prior show-cause notice was required against the earlier holder of rights. en-us Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2020 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395141 Where a party's rights in an SEZ plot had already been lawfully extinguished through sale and possession under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Gujarat High Court held that the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 suspension and transfer procedure was not required before recognising the auction purchaser as co-developer. Section 10 and Rule 2(s) were inapplicable because the approval merely reflected the changed title and possession, rather than altering an existing co-developer arrangement. The Board was therefore justified in approving the auction purchaser, and no prior show-cause notice was required against the earlier holder of rights. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 20 Apr 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395141