TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 667
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.08.2008, 02.09.2008, 05.09.2008, 15.09.2008, 23.09.2008 and 15/30.09.2008, all passed by respondent No. 2 by which penalty has been imposed on one TPI India Ltd, its directors and ex-directors. Petitioner is impugning these orders because Mr. Bhatt's name also appears in the impugned orders. 4. It is stated in the petition that prior to 10.03.1999, Mr. Bhatt was an independent non-executive director of TPI India Ltd ("TPI"). On 10.03.1999, Mr. Bhatt resigned as independent director of TPI. A copy of resignation letter dated 10.03.1999 and Form 32 dated 29.04.1999 were filed with the Registrar of Companies by TPI intimating to the public about resignation of Mr. Bhatt. TPI has been declared a sick industrial company under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions Act), 1955 ("SICA") by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ("BIFR"), New Delhi. The fact that Mr. Bhatt had resigned has not been disputed. The fact that Mr. Bhatt was an independent non-executive director and had nothing to do with the day to day management and business of TPI has also not been denied. 5. It appears that TPI had been issued Advance Import licences unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we can safely proceed on the basis that all orders are almost identical except that after the first order, in the subsequent orders, there is reference to BIFR proceedings. It will be useful to reproduce the first adjudication order dated 25.07.2008 which reads as under:- 10. From the order, it is quite clear that (a) It was TPI that was required to fulfill the export obligation within the prescribed period and submit the documents within one month from the date of expiry of export obligation period towards discharge of its export obligation; (b) It was TPI that did not submit any original documentary evidence in discharge of export obligation; (c) In view thereof, it was TPI that had received a demand notice dated 13.08.2000; (d) It was TPI that was given an opportunity of personal hearing by the licencing authority; (e) It was TPI that failed to respond to the demand notice; (f) The licencing authority therefore declared TPI a defaulter; (g) Since TPI did not submit any original documents in reply to the demand notice, it was TPI that was issued a refusal order dated 26.02.2001 followed by a forfeiture order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....natural justice. In point of facts, prejudice has been actually caused to Mr. Bhatt. This is so because the show-cause-notice was not issued in the name of Mr. Bhatt or even to his correct address. Even show-cause-notice issued to TPI did not contain specific allegation against Mr. Bhatt to which he could reply. No opportunity as such was given to Mr. Bhatt to represent against the proposed imposition of penalty. Obviously, Mr. Bhatt was not heard before the impugned orders were passed whereby penalty has been imposed upon him. The proceedings against Mr. Bhat were void ab initio. If only a notice had been sent to Mr. Bhatt identifying the specific acts attributable to him, Mr. Bhatt could have represented against the imposition of any penalty. He could have placed on record various facts and circumstances to show that even if any offence was committed by TPI, he had no hand in it. All these circumstances, if he were able to establish them, would have absolved him of the liability of penalty. Even on the question of prejudice, the impugned order imposing the penalty on Mr. Bhatt could not be sustained. It would be useful to quote paragraphs 7 to 9 of a judgment of Gujarat High Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner. Whether the company brought the aforesaid notice to the knowledge of the petitioner or not is not a relevant consideration and, therefore, the factum of the company not informing the petitioner cannot be construed as a parallel situation to the one before the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision. In the present case what is of utmost importance is the fact that no notice to the petitioner was issued by the respondents. That being the case, there was a clear violation of the mandatory statutory provision contained in Section 4L of the said Act. That apart, there was a violation of the principles of Natural justice. 18. Before parting with this case, it would be relevant to note that though the aforesaid discussion has proceeded on the assumption that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, in point of fact prejudice has actually been caused to the petitioner. This is so because the show-cause notice was not issued to the petitioner. Even the show-cause notice issued to the company did not contain specific allegations against the petitioner to which he could reply. No opportunity as such was given to the petitioner to represent against the proposed impos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the action as deemed fit is also proposed to be taken against them after examination of the reply submitted by them". This itself suggests that in the show-cause notice there was no definite proposal against the Directors. In this view of the matter the show-cause notice is no show-cause notice in the eye of law and therefore the consequential orders are also required to be nullified. The impugned order-in-original dated 15-7-2009 and order-in-appeal dated 7-10-2010 are hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute." 13. In the circumstances, rule is made absolute. Petition disposed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under:- "(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after looking into the legality and the propriety thereof to quash and set aside, qua Shri. Anand Bhatt, the ex-parte impugned orders dated 25.07.2008, 12.08.2008, 02.09.2008, 05.09.2008, 15.09.2008, 23.09.2008 and 15/30.09.2008 (Exhibit "E1" to Exhibit "E9" hereto)". ============= Docu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Advance Licence bearing No.0003015422 dt.14/1/1997, for total CIF value of Rs.10,17,200/- for import of Polypropylene Granules (Tape Grade) 14175 kgs and UV Stabiliser with an obligation to export 13148 kgs of PP Woven sack with UV stabiliser for total FOB value of Rs.13,73,250/-. Document 2 6. As per the information available on record, the above said Noticee firm was required to fulfill the corresponding export obligation within the prescribed period and would submit the documents within 1 month from the date of expiry of export obligation period towards discharge of export obligation. Since the Noticee firm did not submit any original documentary evidence in discharge of export obligation even after the expiry of export obligation period on 14/1/1998, they were issued a Demand notice dt. 13/8/2000, with an opportunity of personal hearing by the Licensing Authority. However, the Noticee firm failed to respond to the said Demand Notice. The Licensing Authority therefore, declared them 'Defaulter'. Since the firm did not submit any original documents nor replied to the aforesaid Demand Notice, they were issued a (Refusal Order 26....