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>Validity of Summons Upheld, Petitioner Must Comply with Foreign Exchange Regulation Act</h1> <h3>TTV. DINAKARAN Versus ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE</h3> The court upheld the validity of the summons issued under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, dismissing the petitioner's challenge. ... Inquiry and investigation Issues Involved:1. Validity of the summons issued u/s 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973.2. Requirement to specify the nature of investigation in the summons.3. Application of mind by the respondent in issuing the summons.4. Nexus between the documents demanded and the object of the investigation.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of the Summons Issued u/s 40 of FERA, 1973The petitioner challenged the summons issued u/s 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, claiming it was illegal and did not comply with mandatory requirements. The court examined Section 40, which empowers any Gazetted Officer of Enforcement to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document during the course of any investigation or proceeding under the Act. The court found that the respondent had the authority to issue such summons and that the petitioner was bound to attend.Issue 2: Requirement to Specify the Nature of Investigation in the SummonsThe petitioner argued that the summons should specify the nature of the investigation and the proceedings under the Act. The court held that it is not always feasible for the authority to reveal the nature of the investigation in the summons, as it could compromise the investigation. The summons indicated that the petitioner's attendance was necessary to give evidence and/or to produce documents, which the court found sufficient.Issue 3: Application of Mind by the Respondent in Issuing the SummonsThe petitioner contended that the summons was issued without proper application of mind, as it did not specify whether the petitioner's attendance was necessary to give evidence or to produce documents. The court observed that the summons clearly stated that the Enforcement Officer considered the attendance of the petitioner necessary, indicating the application of mind. The non-striking of the words 'and/or' did not invalidate the summons.Issue 4: Nexus Between the Documents Demanded and the Object of the InvestigationThe petitioner argued that the documents requested (passport, bank account passbooks, and property details) had no nexus with the investigation. The court found that the documents were related to the petitioner and could be relevant to the investigation under FERA. The court noted that the investigation might pertain to the petitioner or a third party connected to him, and the authorities were empowered to summon him for inquiry.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the summons issued u/s 40 of the FERA Act was valid and did not violate any legal requirements. The petitioner was required to comply with the summons and assist in the investigation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
