TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation regime, the petitioner had a right to insist on cross-examination of witnesses and invoke writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an appeal.
Analysis: Rule 3(5) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1974 permits the adjudicating authority to give the person concerned an opportunity to produce documents or evidence, but expressly states that the authority is not bound by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On that basis, the right to cross-examine witnesses is not available as of right in such proceedings. The show cause notice had already supplied the relied-upon material, and the rejection of the request for cross-examination was itself appealable under Section 52(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The refusal to permit cross-examination was therefore consistent with the statutory procedure and did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The request for cross-examination was rightly rejected and the writ petition was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: In adjudication proceedings governed by Rule 3(5) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1974, there is no enforceable right to cross-examine witnesses as of right, since the adjudicating authority is not bound by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and must proceed according to the statutory procedure.
TaxTMI 
