TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1407
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 3 and 4. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- One Ullas Karanth said to be the * son of Dr. K. Shivarama Karanth, is the Chief Functionary for Centre for Wild Life Studies. The petitioner registers a trust deed under the name and style of Centre for Wildlife Studies with the object of promoting and carrying on activities relating to scientific study *Deleted vide chamber order dated 27.06.2024. and conservation of natural habitats of wildlife, promoting projects which involve rehabilitation of endangered animals, ecosystem and plants. The members of the scientists in the Trust are internationally recognized and have been conferred several awards and innumerable encomiums. With the aforesaid objects, on 23-01-1990 the Trust registers itself under the Act. The registration has been renewed from time to time. On 05-03-2021, the petitioner makes an application for change of bank account in which funds of the trust were being operated, which als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ancellation. Section 14 (2) of the Act contemplates reasonable opportunity of being heard. Being heard would not mean personal hearing. It is his submission that the requirement is only issuance of a show cause notice and not personal hearing. The show cause notice had admittedly been issued in the case at hand. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with on the said ground. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The registration of the petitioner on 23-01-1990 is a matter of record. On an allegation that there has been mis-management of funds of foreign contributors, an order of suspension of registration of the petitioner comes about on 05-03-3021 for a period of six months. After the suspension, it is said that a communication is sent to the petitioner for which the respondents do not have any proof and the contention is that it was never received by the petitioner. Therefore, I leave the submission thereto as it is. The petitioner then, to the order of suspension, is seen to have sent a reply on 11-04-2023. This r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of this Act or rules or order made thereunder; or (e) if the holder of the certificate has not been engaged in any reasonable activity in its chosen field for the benefit of the society for two consecutive years or has become defunct. (2) No order of cancellation of certificate under this section shall be made unless the person concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) Any person whose certificate has been cancelled under this section shall not be eligible for registration or grant of prior permission for a period of three years from the date of cancellation of such certificate." (Emphasis supplied) Section 14 of the Act permits cancellation of registration made under Section 12 of the Act, if the Government is satisfied, after making such inquiry as it may deem fit, to cancel the certificate. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act mandates that no order of cancellation under the Section shall be made unless the person concerned is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Sub-section (3) mandates that any person whose certificate has been cancelled shall not be eligible for registration or grant for a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iv) Petitioner executes projects for domestic organizations including government departments and many a times, donations are received after the expenditure is incurred. The details as to how the allegations are not correct is set out at pages 553 to 558. (v) Pajero Car was received by the petitioner in the year 1998, which vehicle was used extensively for forest activities for nearly 10 years, after which, it became unfit for further activities of the Trust and therefore, a decision was taken to sell it. Permission was also sought for from the Customs Department and the Customs Department granted permission to sell the Car and consequently, the Car was sold for the value set out in the books of the petitioner. (Pages 559 to 570) (vi) Though the donation was received for the project "WILD KAAPI", there were no takers and ultimately, the Managing Trustees incorporated the partnership firm under the name and style "WILD KAAPI LLP". Not a single rupee of foreign contribution was transferred to "WILD KAAPI LLP". What comes about is one of the impugned orders dated 04-09-2023. A perusal at the impugned order would not indicate that it is so cryptic that it n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication for a prospecting licence has been made. PROVIDED that where applications for the grant of prospecting licence and applications tor the grant of mining lease in respect of the same area are received on the same date or on different dates within a period of thirty days, the applications for the grant of mining lease shall, if the area was previously held and worked under a mining lease, be disposed of before the application for the grant of prospecting licence are considered: PROVIDED FURTHER that the applications received for grant of prospecting licence shall be liable to be considered only if they have not been already disposed of." (underline supplied) 6. The Rule Making Authority has chosen to specifically provide that the power of rejection or refusal can be exercised by the State Government after giving an opportunity of being heard. We cannot accept the narrow interpretation put by the second respondent that 'opportunity of being heard' may not be necessarily 'opportunity of being personally heard'. 7. The words 'after giving an opportunity of being heard' were inserted by the amendment dated 2nd May 1979. Earlier sub-rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner, Bangalore [1976 (2) K.L.J. 168.] to which one of us (Jagannatha Shetty, J.) was a party. While interpreting the said word, it was observed: "Sub-rule-(3) positively states that the Assistant Commissioner shall hear the objector and the Block Development Officer. 'Hearing' in the context is "personal hearing" and not mere opportunity to file objections. ................ If the right to be heard is to be a real right and is worth anything it must carry with it a right in the person to know the case which is made against him. He must know what materials have been collected, what evidence has been given and what statements or reports have been made affecting his rights. He must be given a fair opportunity for correcting or contradicting any relevant statement pre-judicial to his view. These principles appear in all these cases right from the celebrated judgment of Lord Loreburn, L.C. in Board of Education v. Rice (1911 A.C. 179)" 20. This crucial aspect appears to have escaped the notice of the disciplinary authority. The show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority against the proposed penalty asked the respondent to file only the representation. The r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of section 14 of the FCRA and the same has not been given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent, Union of India has drawn the attention of this Court to their affidavit, where the reasons for passing the impugned order have been given. In the said affidavit the respondent says that on the basis of adverse inputs received from the securities agency in the report dated 29, September 2016 which is reproduced by the Union of India in his affidavit and which reads as hereunder "as per inputs with financial assistance of ACTIOONAID, UK, NGOs like Society for Advocacy and Development (SAMVAD) and Jai Bharti Shiksha Kendra, Katni M.P. Chalked out a plan on November 11, 2011 to increase public awareness against the proposed Chutka Nuclear Power Plant and Ataria Dam Project. In this connection, an agreement was made between British based financial agency ACTION AID and SAMVAD, including Jai Bharti Shiksha Kendra, in the month of January, 2012, under Network co-ordination Project for a period of 10 years to mobilize the public against the Chutka Projects including the Ataria Dam Project, ACTIONAID, UK sanctioned an amount of Rs. 10 Lakh to SAMVAD for the year 2012 for carryin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellate authority as the said authority may deem think proper. Now it is too late to urge that when a statute vests discretion in an authority to exercise a statutory power such authority can exercise the same in an unfettered manner. Whenever an unfettered discretion has been exercised, courts have refused to countenance the same. That is why from time to time courts have "woven a network of restrictive principles" which the statutory authorities have to follow while exercising the discretion vested in them. This principle has been extended even when the authorities have to exercise administrative discretions under certain situations. Another well-settled principle which has emerged during the years that where a statute vests discretion in the authority to exercise a particular power, there is an implicit requirement that it shall be exercised in a reasonable and rational manner free from whims, vagaries and arbitrariness. 5. The High Court has primarily considered the question as to whether denying an opportunity to the appellant to be heard before his prayer to dispense with the deposit of the penalty is rejected, violates and contravenes the principles of natural jus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his Court that such requirement cannot be held to be harsh or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution so as to declare the requirement of pre-deposit itself as unconstitutional. In this background, it can be said that normal rule is that before filing the appeal or before the appeal is heard, the person concerned should deposit the amount which he has been directed to deposit as a tax or penalty. The non-deposit of such amount itself is an exception which has been incorporated in different statutes including the one with which we are concerned. Second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4-M says in clear and unambiguous words that an appeal against an order imposing a penalty shall not be entertained unless the amount of the penalty has been deposited by the appellant. Thereafter the third proviso vests a discretion in such appellate authority to dispense with such deposit unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may impose in its discretion taking into consideration the undue hardship which it is likely to cause to the appellant. As such it can be said that the statutory requirement is that before an appeal is entertained, the amount of penalty has to be deposited....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned counsel for the respondent is NIRMA INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (2013) 8 SCC 20. He seeks to place reliance upon paragraph 38 which reads as follows: "38. In our opinion, the aforesaid provisions are of no assistance to the appellants. Firstly, neither the appellants nor their merchant bankers requested for an opportunity for a personal hearing. Secondly, in the present case, SEBI has not issued any instructions or directions under Section 11, which requires that the rules of natural justice be complied with. Thirdly, it cannot be said that the appellants had been condemned unheard as the entire material on which the appellants were relying was placed before SEBI. It is upon consideration of the entire matter that the offer of the appellants was rejected. This is evident from the detailed order passed by SEBI on 30-4-2007. The letter indicates precisely the exceptional circumstances mentioned by the appellants seeking to withdraw the public announcement. Each and every circumstance mentioned was considered by SEBI. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants have been in any manner prejudiced by the non-grant of the opportuni....