TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 946
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t) directing the appellant to either deposit a specific sum and/or attaching various assets of the appellant with a further direction not to alienate or transfer any of the assets etc. The impugned recovery certificates/attachment notices/orders issued by the concerned authority in SEBI are the recovery certificates, bank account attachment notice, demat account attachment notice all dated December 30, 2015 as well as the orders dated August 12, 2016, September 14, 2016 and recovery certificate dated January 27, 2017. 2. Vide the impugned order dated August 12, 2016 appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3 crore to SEBI within one week from the date of receipt of the order; pay Rs. 5 crore per month commencing from September 20, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Court which affirmed the order of this Tribunal by its judgement dated February 26, 2013. Pursuant to this, a recovery certificate (no. 847 of 2015) was issued by the Recovery Officer of SEBI on December 30, 2015 which was challenged by the appellant in Appeal No. 383 of 2016. This Tribunal allowed the appellant to withdraw the said appeal on January 10, 2017 with liberty to file a fresh appeal. The present appeal before us is the same filed by the appellant on February 3, 2017 thereby challenging various directions relating to depositing specific amount and/or various directions relating to attachment and/or alienating the properties etc. 4. The basic contention of the appellant is that it was conducting a genuine weekend farming busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncapable of being conveyed. 5. Therefore, the appellant's contention is that even prior to the order of the Apex Court (supra) whereby the issue of CIS was finally settled, the appellant had distributed land or returned monies to majority of the contributors/investors and only 79 such contributors who had contributed Rs. 2.37 crore remains to be paid. Even for this purpose land is readily available but such land being agricultural land and the contributors being non-agriculturalists the land cannot be distributed amongst them. Therefore, the direction of SEBI by the recovery notice dated December 30, 2015 to remit an amount of Rs. 20,06,42,109/- (20.06 crore approximately) and the consequential directions subsequently issued vide var....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been paid cash soon after the SEBI order in 2003. 8. As regards the remaining 79 contributors with a total due of Rs. 2.37 crore the said amount has been deposited with the Recovery Officer. In addition, title deed for free and marketable land worth Rs. 5.95 crore has also been deposited with the Recovery Officer. Accordingly, the appellant has already returned the amount collected to 122 contributors, land to 690 contributors and deposited sufficient money/assets for paying to the remaining contributors. Therefore a further direction to deposit Rs. 20 crore set out in the recovery certificate and consequential directions are not sustainable. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that various documents such as co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and/or land to majority of the investors. The value of the land was only 1/6th of the amount collected and the balance amount was for development. The appellant has been given multiple chances by this Tribunal itself to prove the veracity that they in fact returned the money or land which is not forthcoming and the appellant keep on giving some piecemeal information relating to the same to SEBI. The respondent SEBI also relied on this Tribunal's order in the case of PACL Ltd. v. SEBI [2015] 60 taxmann.com 285/132 SCL 1 (Sat. - Mum.) 11. In 2003 the appellant never stated that part of the amount collected was returned to the investors in cash nor they had given any land, neither before SEBI nor when they came on appeal before this T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the provisions of Regulation 71 of the CIS Regulations which required the appellant to send an information memorandum to its investors. Further, while upholding the order of SEBI in May 2006, this Tribunal directed the appellant to refund the amount to the investors. The direction was not to return land but to refund the amount collected. At that time the appellant did not make any representation stating that part of the monies had been already refunded or some investors had been given land. This stand was not taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well, which dismissed their appeal in 2013. 13. Dehors the same this Tribunal had given ample opportunities to the appellant to prove the veracity of their statements with documen....