AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion). The relevant Regulation, which has been relied upon for this purpose is, Regulation 20(1). 3. Notice in this petition was issued on 01.11.2016. To date, no counter affidavit has been filed in the Writ Petition, despite opportunity having been given. As a matter of fact, on 01.11.2016, Mr.Srinivas, had entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. 4. I may have, in other circumstances, given further time to file a counter affidavit, but, since, the issue raised in the Writ Petition is covered against the respondents, no purpose would be served in indulging the respondents by giving further time to file a counter affidavit. 5. Even otherwise, the facts, which are necessary, for disposal of the present Writ Petition are not in disp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.1. I may only note that vide order dated 29.05.2015, a penalty in the sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs has been imposed on the petitioner. It is, perhaps, for this reason, that an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. 7. In so far as the present petition is concerned, as indicated above, the grievance lies in the action taken thereafter, by respondent No.1, in issuing the SCN dated 18.10.2016. 7.1. Via the said notice, respondent No.1 called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence issued to him ought not to be revoked and the security deposited by him ought not to be forfeited or, penalty ought not to be imposed in terms of Regulation 18 of the 2013 Regulations. 8. Being aggrieved by the issuance of the said SCN, the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een indicated hereinabove. 13. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand, while not disputing the facts set out above, says that the judgment of the learned single Judge in Master Stroke is pending in appeal before the Division Bench. It is, therefore, the learned counsel's submission, that this Court should stand over the matter till a decision is taken in the appeal. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. According to me, the judgments cited before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner covers the issue raised in the present Writ Petition. 15. To be noted, in Master Stroke, a learned single Judge of this Court has clearly ruled that the period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.01.2014. Whereas, under the CBLR, 2013 having found the necessity to prescribe a period, the Central Board, the statutory authority had included the same in the Regulations itself, when they were brought into force. Therefore, when a time limit is prescribed in Regulations, which empowers action under Regulation 18 by following the procedure in Regulation 20 (1), the use of the term shall cannot be termed as directory. Under such circumstances, the rule can only be termed as Mandatory." 17. In so far as, when, the prescribed period should start ticking, another learned single Judge of this Court, in A.M.Ahamed & Co., has made the following observations: ".....17. Unfortunately, the Regulations do not define what an offence report is an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regulations and (iii) a misconduct, for any of which, the licence can be revoked. Since the above regulation does not use the expression "offence report", we have to presume that a report indicating the availability of any one of the above 3 ingredients should be construed as an offence report. Consequently, the date of knowledge gained by the Commissioner, by means of any communication, be it show cause notice or order-in original, has to be construed as the date of receipt of the offence report . Otherwise, a report about anyone of the above 3 ingredients can be sent at any time, even after five years or ten years...." (emphasis is mine) 18. A perusal of the observations made in A.M.Ahamed & Co. case, is indicative of the fact, that th....