AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....about 20-5-1993. The Board initiated certain preliminary investigations about the affairs relating to public issues by the said Company on the basis of a complaint received from a member of Bombay Stock Exchange (for short BSE). The public issue of the said Company was of 52 lakhs shares of Rs. 10 each at a premium of Rs. 3.50 per share aggregating to Rs. 7 crore 2 lakhs. The Lead Managers to the issue were Bank of Baroda and Apple Industries Limited. Such issues opened on 26-11-1993 and closed on December 1993 and one of the Directors of the Company appeared to be the chief promoter of the same. 4. The complaint was to the effect that there was mis-statement in the prospectus filed by the company at the time of the public issue with regard to alleged non-disclosure of pledge of 7 lakh 50 thousand shares held in the company by Directors of the company to avail of working capital from Bank of Baroda. The second aspect of the complaint was that the Directors of the company had also given a non-disposal undertaking to Bank of Baroda in respect of the same shares and that the prospectus does not mention the same. The further complaint is that the 2000 investors complained regarding ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... come into force with immediate effect". 7. Against the said order an appeal being Appeal No. 85 of 2004 was filed before the Tribunal. 8. Before the Appellate Forum the only point argued is that section 11B of the Act came by way of amendment to the said Act with effect from 25-1-1995 whereas the public issue in respect of which the impugned order was passed was of November 1993 and the prospectus was of October 1993. Both public issue and prospectus were prior to 1995. The shares were listed with effect from 15-2-1994. Therefore, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the alleged misconduct if any was for a period of time when section 11B was not on the statute book. Thus, the question arose whether any direction can be issued under section 11B for the alleged misconduct said to have been committed prior to introduction of section 11B. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that the provision of section 11B cannot be invoked in respect of the alleged misconduct which took place at a point of time when section 11B was not on the statute book. While passing the said order the Appellate Forum recorded that the respondent before the said Forum, the appellant herein, wants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be, not applicable for recovery of tax assessed on the Hindu Undivided Family for a period prior to the enactment of those provisions. Therefore, this Court held that the Income-tax Officer was not correct in taking recourse to sub-sections (6) to (7) of section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of recovery of tax assessed on the Hindu Undivided Family for assessment in respect of the years 1950-51 and 1956-57 since the relevant provisions of 1961 Act were not given any retrospective operation. It is not in dispute that the assessment of tax in respect of the assessment year for the Hindu Undivided Family was completed under the corresponding provisions of the 1922 Act. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that such a case would be governed by section 25A of the old Act which does not impose any liability on members of the Hindu Undivided Family in case of partial partition since no such liability existed under section 25A of the old Act. 18. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that the ratio in Govinddas's case (supra) does not apply to this case inasmuch as no tax liability has been created under the order of the Board. 19. The Appellate Tribunal without at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id that any new provision has been invoked in connection with any pending proceeding. Nor can it be contended by the respondent that there was any unfairness in the proceeding. Respondent was given adequate, notice of the charges in the show-cause notice. He was given an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice and, thereafter, a fair opportunity of hearing was given before the order was passed by the Board. The entire gamut of a fair procedure was thus observed. 27. This Court also finds that there is no challenge to the amended provision of the law. Even if the law applies prospectively, the Board cannot be prevented from acting in terms of the law which exists on the day the Board passed its order. 28. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that on the date when the violations were alleged against him, the Board did not have the power either under section 11B or under section 11(4)(b) as those provisions came subsequently by way of amendment. This contention weighed with the appellate forum and the respondent was given the protection against ex-post facto law even though it was not clearly mentioned in the order of the Appellate Forum. 29. The right of a person o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Court held that : ". . . what is prohibited is the conviction of a person or his subjection to a penalty under 'ex post facto' laws. The prohibition under the article is not confined to the passing or the validity of the law, but extends to the conviction or the sentence and is based on its character as an 'ex post facto' law..." (p. 398) 36. The ratio of this judgment has again been affirmed in State of West Bengal v. S.K. Ghosh AIR 1963 SC 255, wherein another Constitution Bench of this Court speaking through Justice Wanchoo, as His Lordship then was, held that a forfeiture by a District Judge under section 13(3) of Criminal Laws Amendment Ordinance of 1944 cannot be equated to a forfeiture under section 53 of IPC inasmuch as forfeiture under section 13(3) of the Ordinance involved embezzlement of Government money or property and the same is not punishment or penalty within the meaning of article 20(1) of Constitution (See paras 14 and 15 of the judgment). 37. Even if penalty is imposed after an adjudicatory proceeding, persons on whom such penalty is imposed cannot be called an accused. It has been held that proceedings under section 23(1A) of Foreign Exchange Regula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2002. 45. From the statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act of 2002, it appears that the Parliament thought that in view of growing importance of stock market in national economy, SEBI will have to deal with new demands in terms of improving organisational structure and strengthening institutional capacity. 46. Therefore, certain shortcomings which were in the existing structure of law were sought to be amended by strengthening the mechanisms available to SEBI for investigation and enforcement, so that it is better equipped to investigate and enforce against market malpractices. (See Paragraph 3 of the Statement of objects and reasons). 47. Section 11B which empowers the Board to issue certain directions also came up by way of amendments in 1995 by Act 9 of 1995. The Statements of Objects and Reasons of such amendments show one of the objects is to empower the Board to issue regulations without the approval of the Central Government. (See para 3(e) of the Statements of Objects and Reasons). Section 11B of the Act thus empowers the Board to give directions in the interest of the investors and for orderly development of securities market, which, as noted abov....