TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....torship firm having one Shri Ramash Babu Srinivasan as the sole Proprietor of the firm. The registered address of the firm SGI is at Plot No.80, Door No.7, 1st Floor, E Street, Sri Devi Vaishnavai Nagar, Annanur, Avadi, Chennai-600 109, Tamil Nadu whereas the declared residential address of Proprietor of the firm is at No.50, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai-600 081. 2.2 The firm SGI opened a Current Account No.200012921144 with Kilpauk Branch of Indusind Bank, Chennai. The firm SGI also opened a current account having C. A. No. 010386700000236 with Parrys Branch of Yes Bank, Chennai. The declared business of the firm SGI with Indusind Bank was Marketing Consultancy and with Yes Bank was export/import. The Current Accounts were opened for the firm SGI with evidence of Permanent Account Number (PAN) ASHPR0917J and Ration Card having Number 01/G/0151163. 2.3 The firm SGI during the period from December, 2012 to February, 2013 had received funds to the tune of Rs.58,00,72,330/- by way of RTGS and Rs. 26,45,86,100/- by way of cash deposits in the Bank Account being maintained at Kilpauk Branch of Indus Ind Bank. Further the firm SGI during the period from February, 2013 to March, 2014 receive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supply and Consumer protection was requested to locate the person having Ration Card No. 01/G/0151163. However, the department informed vide letter No.A-2/1625/2015 dated 10.02.2015 that no such person resides at the provided address. Despite putting all efforts the person called Shri Ramash Babu Srinivasan could not be traced. 2.8 Having trace of no whereabouts of the Proprietor Shri Ramash Babu and no lead to the fictitious entities who transferred the foreign exchange to the firm SGI by way of NEFT/RTGS, a need was felt to look into the ultimate beneficiaries of the humongous loss to the exchequer in terms of loss of foreign exchange without any import of goods taken place. It is needless to say that the loss of foreign exchange in conspiracy to cause harm to the economic health of the country and taking the foreign exchange abroad with the purpose of accumulating the assets outside India defying the due process of law needed to be properly examined and thoroughly investigated. 2.9 The details of the beneficiaries of the Hong Kong companies were obtained from the public sources as available at the website of The Cyber Search Centre of the Integrated Companies Registry Infor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would reveal the modus adopted by the beneficial owners of J G Group to run companies in the name of employees. Shri Sawan Bohra & Shri Bharat Kumar have confirmed that they opened the Hong Kong companies at the behest of beneficial owners of J G Group and these companies located in Hong Kong were the beneficiaries of the foreign exchange sent by M/s SGI in the guise of import advance remittance. 2.11 Further, the email dump of email id [email protected] was seized during the search conducted at the premise of M/s J G Group at 55, Narayana Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai. From email it is revealed that the beneficial owners of J G Group tried to apply for DIN 1 of Shri Ramesh Babu Srinivasan through Company Secretary Mrs Anchal Jain. The statements of Shri Vikram Ranka, Chartered Accountant, who was working for J G Group and statement of Mrs Anchal Jain, Company Secretary recorded under Section 37 of FEMA, 1999 would corroborate to the above findings with respect to applying the DIN1 for Shri Ramash Babu Srinivasan. Further, Shri Prakash Chand Purohit confirmed in his statement under Section 37 of FEMA, 1999 recorded on 24.11.2021 as well as 21.12.2021 that the email id pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in initiation of the investigation. In fact, the appellant/Directorate of Enforcement are making thorough investigation in the matter. They have to find out the beneficiary of the remittance of the amount to five companies in Hong Kong. It is for the reason that the companies held by the person seems to be not the real person, rather it seems to be the individuals/respondents before this Tribunal. The investigation could not be completed despite all efforts but the appellant would complete it at the earliest possible time and otherwise they could bring on record the material to show violation of Section 4 of the Act of 1999. In fact, recently the statement of Mrs. Sangeeta Jain was recorded but it could not be brought on record due to the reason that hearing of the appeal was preponed in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 24.10.2024 in the case of Mahesh Jain & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. (WP (C) No. 14943/2024). In any case, the appellant would continue the investigation and complete it at the earliest. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that despite the material before the learned Commissioner, interference in the order of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ground of delay but in reference to Section 4 of the Act of 1999 on the pretext that the appellant could not prove that the remittance from India to offshore companies was made from the account of the respondents. In fact, the further investigation in the matter may prove that money was transmitted to offshore companies belonging to the respondents and in the process only, the statement of Sangeeta Jain was recorded. It is further submitted that Ramash Babu of M/s Sunshine Global Importers could not be traced out. The respondents remained unsuccessful to make an application for DIN 1 for him as the email dump of email id [email protected] was seized during the search. 8. It was all done at the instance of the respondents belonging to J.G. Group. In the light of the aforesaid, prayer was made to cause interference in the order. It is, however, with the prayer that if the impugned order is not set aside, it may be clarified that the order passed by the Tribunal would not affect the further investigation for passing of the necessary orders thereupon. 9. The appeal was seriously contested by the respondents on all the grounds urged by the appellant. It was submitted that a de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng no substance therein. 15. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record carefully. 16. The appeal has been filed by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner/Competent Authority who set aside the order of seizure. 17. We find that an elaborate order has been passed by the Commissioner/Competent Authority after considering all the issues. It not only considered legal but factual issues raised by the parties. If the case in hand is taken in chronological order, it started at the instance of M/s Sunshine Global Importers said to have been managed by one Ramash Babu Srinivasan. The bank account in the name of the company was opened along with the Certificate of Importer Exporter Code, Service Tax Registration Certificate, Pan Card, E-tax Payment, etc. It was with 'Yes Bank' and even before the Indusind Bank where the account opening form application along with Pan Card was submitted for registration of MSME by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu. The amount of Rs.112.27 Crores was remitted from the account of M/s Sunshine Global Importers. The starting point of the investigation should have be....