https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753442 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging FEMA adjudication proceedings where personal hearing notice was issued without providing reasoned opinion under Rule 4(3). The court held that Rule 4(3) does not expressly mandate communication of reasons to the person against whom proceedings are initiated. While the Bombay HC had judicially expanded the rule's scope, the Madras HC found that plain reading of the rule only requires the Adjudicating Authority to form an opinion before issuing notice, not to communicate such reasons. The court declined to entertain the writ petition during intermittent stage, directing the petitioner to defend through available procedural opportunities under the Act and Rules. en-us Mon, 29 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jun 2024 13:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753442 The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging FEMA adjudication proceedings where personal hearing notice was issued without providing reasoned opinion under Rule 4(3). The court held that Rule 4(3) does not expressly mandate communication of reasons to the person against whom proceedings are initiated. While the Bombay HC had judicially expanded the rule's scope, the Madras HC found that plain reading of the rule only requires the Adjudicating Authority to form an opinion before issuing notice, not to communicate such reasons. The court declined to entertain the writ petition during intermittent stage, directing the petitioner to defend through available procedural opportunities under the Act and Rules. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 29 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753442