https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778620 HC set aside the impugned inquiry report and allowed the petition. The court held the proceedings had abated because mandatory timelines under Regulation 17(1) and 17(5) of the CBLR, 2018 were not met-the show cause notice and the inquiry report were issued beyond the 90-day period and the inquiry report was not communicated in time. Given the abatement, the HC did not need to decide the separate claim of denial of cross-examination, and the inquiry report dated 27.6.2025 was quashed. en-us Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Sep 2025 08:33:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778620 HC set aside the impugned inquiry report and allowed the petition. The court held the proceedings had abated because mandatory timelines under Regulation 17(1) and 17(5) of the CBLR, 2018 were not met-the show cause notice and the inquiry report were issued beyond the 90-day period and the inquiry report was not communicated in time. Given the abatement, the HC did not need to decide the separate claim of denial of cross-examination, and the inquiry report dated 27.6.2025 was quashed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778620