TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... common order. 2.Writ Petition No.22344 of 2017 has been filed challenging the order of seizure dated 27.06.2017, passed by the Assistant Director, stating that he has reason to believe that foreign exchange worth USD 352258.25 suspected to be held outside India in contravention of Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ( FEMA for brevity) and the equivalent value of the property of the petitioner in India to the tune of USD 352258.25 (worth Rs. 1,53,97,746/-) is liable to be seized in terms of provisions of Section 37A(1) of FEMA, read with Government of India notifications. Therefore, the first respondent ordered for seizure of the petitioner s Bank account to the tune of Rs. 1,59,14,857/- 3.Writ Petition No.31851 of 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anced by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would plead that one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to go before the Commissioner (Appeals) and make submissions on merits. 6.M/s.G.Hema, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate submitted that, summons was issued to the petitioner under Section 37(1) of FEMA read with Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and statement was recorded from him on 26.06.2016, wherein he had stated that proceeds were transferred to the Account of Xeniox Foundation and he has admitted credit in his account of Xeniox Foundation in HSBC Bank, Geneva. 7.The learned Senior Panel Counsel referred to the various other factual details as mentioned in paragraphs 5.3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the same, has filed Writ Petition No.31851 of 2017, challenging the order passed by the competent authority. 12.It is further submitted that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity of personal hearing on four occasions by the competent authority. On the first hearing on 14.09.2017, the petitioner appeared and sought for adjournment. The matter was adjourned thrice thereafter, and the petitioner did not appear. Therefore, the competent authority, who was statutorily required to dispose of the petition within 180 days from the date of seizure (as per Section 37A(3) of FEMA) after granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, passed the impugned order, which is an appealable order and appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the provisions of Section 4 of FEMA, mainly on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence to show that the alleged amount has been repatriated to India. 15.It was further submitted that, the petitioner is in possession of documents/records to show that the amounts were repatriated to India, shown in the books of accounts and the amounts have suffered tax. The Court noted that these documents were not filed in the writ petition and adjourned the matter at the request of the petitioner to file an additional affidavit, duly supported by documents. Accordingly, an additional affidavit dated 08.01.2018, has been filed along with certain documents. The case was subsequently adjourned and finally heard on 29.01.2018. 16.On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortunity. It needs to be appreciated that the proceedings under FEMA are time bound. The competent authority has to pass orders within 180 days from the date of seizure. Therefore, there cannot be any gainsay that he should be liberal in grant of adjournments. On the other hand, opportunity to a party to represent their cause before a statutory authority should be an effective opportunity and not an empty formality. 18.It is no doubt true that the petitioner s counsel/petitioner did not appear for the personal hearing, nor sought for adjournment, though the competent authority was kind enough to adjourn the matter. Though the petitioner did not appear on 10.10.2017, one more opportunity was granted and the case was posted on 17.10.2017. Ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2002. Along with the additional affidavit, the petitioner has enclosed copy of the letters of HSBC dated 07.03.2016, 25.11.2014, enclosing the information regarding transfer of the petitioner s banking operation etc. In the light of the material, which has been placed before this Court, it would be necessary for the competent authority to consider the same as it may impact the proceedings by going to the root of the matter. However, I do not wish to express anything on the merits of the matter except to state that the petitioner should be afforded one more opportunity and place their objections to the confirmation of the order of seizure before the competent authority. 20.So far as the order of seizure is concerned, the petitioner cannot ....