https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439522 The HC determined that the time limits under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2002 are directory, not mandatory, and exceeding them does not invalidate proceedings but may result in administrative action. The tribunal's discretion in rejecting an enquiry report filed beyond the 90-day limit was upheld, as it was not deemed grossly erroneous. Justice Chowdhury dissented, arguing the report should be considered despite delays. He found the enquiry proceedings flawed and set aside certain charges, noting the respondent's prolonged suspension and security deposit confiscation as sufficient penalty. The appeal was disposed of, and the Appellate Authority's order was to be implemented. en-us Thu, 08 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439522 The HC determined that the time limits under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2002 are directory, not mandatory, and exceeding them does not invalidate proceedings but may result in administrative action. The tribunal's discretion in rejecting an enquiry report filed beyond the 90-day limit was upheld, as it was not deemed grossly erroneous. Justice Chowdhury dissented, arguing the report should be considered despite delays. He found the enquiry proceedings flawed and set aside certain charges, noting the respondent's prolonged suspension and security deposit confiscation as sufficient penalty. The appeal was disposed of, and the Appellate Authority's order was to be implemented. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439522