TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1061
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for the said offences. 3. During the investigation under PMLA, the statement of three investors were recorded whereby they deposed that they invested the amount of face value of Rs. 10 at premium of Rs. 350 per share as the father of Shri Jagan Mohan Reddy who was Chief Minister in 2006-08 asked them to invest the same as his son who wanted to set up a cement factory; therefore they had invested the amount. The amount was invested also due to reason that as Sri Vijay Sai Reddy and Shridhar insisted many times to invest the same and they persuaded by saying that they would get huge benefit out of this investment, but the company has neither given the dividends of any type nor the refund. As per them, the valuation report was antedated as 16.07.2007 which is contrary to the facts. Infact the appellant dishonestly and fraudulently induced many investors, with the sole intention of soliciting huge investments, and thereby caused wrongful gain Rs. 34,65,99,830/- to appellant for the use into the business. It was deposed that the appellant has not fixed any equity base received investments from the individuals with a premium amount of Rs. 350/- per share, though there was no rationa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 97221600 99999360 3. Madhav 09.01.2009 22.11.2009 546110 5461100 191138500 196599600 Ramchand 03.02.2009 ran 14.02.2009 11.03.2009 Total 962774 9627740 336970900 3465998640 9. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant raising many objections with regard to attachment as well as merits of the case. We have heard both parties. In the present appeal already mentioned, we have to examine as to whether the impugned order and the order of PAO is sustainable under any provision of PML Act, 2002 and whether confirmation order has been passed as per law. 10. In the present case, admittedly there is no allegation of Quid Pro Quo against the investors or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchased. There were many other investors, who had purchased the shares for the same value but no action was taken against them except the statement made by the respondent that the ED may take action against few investors where investigation is on. 15. On behalf of M/s. Jagati Publications Ltd., it was submitted that M/s. Jagati Publications was incorporated on 14.11.2006 as private limited company and subsequently became a public limited company from 12.01.2009. All the investments made in Jagati Publications are genuine business transactions by the investors and they hold all rights in such investments being held in form of share. 16. The valuation of Jagati Publications' shares were arrived after taking the entire enterprise valuation of Sakshi News Paper Project with 'size and circulation' into effect. Sakshi regional newspaper was launched with a circulation of about 12 lakh copies with 23 printing centers simultaneously in States of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, New Delhi, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. 17. The valuation of Jagati Publications' shares is based on Discounted Cash Flow Method (DCF, which has been approved by the Reserve Bank of India under Foreign....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant time. They were only included in the Schedule only by way of amendment to PMLA vide Act No. 21 of 2009 w.e.f. 01.06.2009. Here is not a case where it could be said that the investors have taken any advantage from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The respondent has not denied the said aspect. 22. The Provisional attachment order was passed by relying upon the Income Tax Authority assessment order dated 31.12.2010 with respect to the allegations of the share premium and the investments by the companies. Actually investigation done by ED in the same lines of additional facts by the CBI investigation in the PAO. The said order of PAO was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. 23. Nothing has been discussed in the provisional attachment order about the factual position of the matter as well as by the Adjudicating Authority while issuing the notice under section 8 of the Act. If the contentions of the respondent is accepted in the case like this, there would be flood of litigations under this Act which is not permissible in law. It was a case of either recovery of amount on civil-side and on the allegation of cheating and misrepresentation and criminal complaint on the....