https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173457 The proviso to Section 61(2)(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 requires a meaningful pre-complaint opportunity for the accused to show that the necessary permission existed where the alleged contravention concerns an act prohibited without permission. Filing the complaint before that opportunity expired, and before the accused's reply was considered, amounted to non-compliance with a mandatory statutory pre-condition. The complaint also showed no application of mind to the accused's response, and the summons were issued without addressing the statutory bar. The complaint and consequential summons were therefore liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction. en-us Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173457 The proviso to Section 61(2)(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 requires a meaningful pre-complaint opportunity for the accused to show that the necessary permission existed where the alleged contravention concerns an act prohibited without permission. Filing the complaint before that opportunity expired, and before the accused's reply was considered, amounted to non-compliance with a mandatory statutory pre-condition. The complaint also showed no application of mind to the accused's response, and the summons were issued without addressing the statutory bar. The complaint and consequential summons were therefore liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173457