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 the seizure of two Demat accounts under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 may be substituted by furnishing a Fixed Deposit (FD) of equivalent value, with lien in favour of the respondent, pending adjudication and subject to any compounding by the Reserve Bank of India.
Analysis: The Tribunal examined the limited relief sought by the appellants without adjudicating the merits of the alleged contravention under Section 4 of the Act. The competent authority below had confirmed the seizure but observed that it lacked jurisdiction to order substitution of seized items; it nonetheless recommended sympathetic consideration of substitution. The Tribunal noted the purpose of seizure under Section 37A is to secure an equivalent sum in India and that a Fixed Deposit existing for equivalent value would serve the same protective purpose while preserving parties' rights in pending adjudication and any RBI compounding process. The Tribunal considered potential volatility in share values and the equitable interests of both parties, and restrained from pronouncing on substantive guilt or penalty which remain for adjudication under Sections 13 and 16 of the Act.
Conclusion: The seizure of the two Demat accounts is substituted by an FD of equivalent value of Rs. 30,60,11,193/- furnished by the appellants with a lien in favour of the respondents; the seizure of the Demat accounts is lifted subject to the final outcome of the adjudication proceedings and any order on compounding by the Reserve Bank of India.
TaxTMI 
