TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds adjudication order under Foreign Exchange Management Act, emphasizes statutory remedies</h1> <h3>Narinder Pal Singh Versus Union of India and others</h3> The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an adjudication order imposing a penalty under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The court ... Maintainability of appeal - alternative statutory remedy - Penalty for contravention of Section 7 (1)(a) of the FEM 1999 read with Regulation 16(1) (i) & (iii) of Foreign Exchange Management (Exports of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 - HELD THAT:- An appeal against the order impugned herein is maintainable before the Special Director (Appeals), O/o the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aayakar Bhawan, Delhi. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and dispose of the same by relegating the petitioner to avail alternative statutory remedy in accordance with law. Issues:Challenge to adjudication order imposing penalty under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.Analysis:The High Court dealt with a petition challenging an adjudication order dated 20.12.2018, where a penalty was imposed for contravention of Section 7 (1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 along with specific regulations. The petitioner sought relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that an appeal against the impugned order was maintainable before the Special Director (Appeals), O/o the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aayakar Bhawan, Delhi. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the available statutory remedy as per the law.This judgment underscores the principle that when an alternative statutory remedy is available to challenge an order, the court may refuse to entertain a writ petition. The court highlighted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention. By reiterating this principle, the court emphasized the significance of following the prescribed legal procedures and hierarchy of appeals. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal doctrine that litigants must first utilize available administrative or statutory remedies before approaching the court for relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
