https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457296 CESTAT Mumbai ruled on CHA licence revocation involving double jeopardy principles. The tribunal held that double jeopardy protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC applies only to completed trials resulting in conviction or acquittal, not to different parallel proceedings for the same facts. Since the initial proceeding against appellant was not completed within prescribed time limits but was aborted, double jeopardy protection was unavailable. The Commissioner's conditional revocation of CHA licence suspension pending inquiry under Regulation 22 of CHALR 2004 was found arbitrary and beyond competency. The order revoking appellant's CHA licence and forfeiting security deposit under Regulation 27 was set aside. Appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 15 Sep 2024 01:19:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457296 CESTAT Mumbai ruled on CHA licence revocation involving double jeopardy principles. The tribunal held that double jeopardy protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC applies only to completed trials resulting in conviction or acquittal, not to different parallel proceedings for the same facts. Since the initial proceeding against appellant was not completed within prescribed time limits but was aborted, double jeopardy protection was unavailable. The Commissioner's conditional revocation of CHA licence suspension pending inquiry under Regulation 22 of CHALR 2004 was found arbitrary and beyond competency. The order revoking appellant's CHA licence and forfeiting security deposit under Regulation 27 was set aside. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457296