TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DUDEJA Appellant Through: Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, Sr. Adv, Ms. Rashmi Virmani, Mr. Krishan Tewary, Ms. Shriya Gambhir, Ms. Diva Saigal, Advs., Mr. Ateev Mathur, Mr. Amol Sharma, Mr. Sanjay Gupta Mr. Anmol Mehta & Ms. Tanya Baijla, Advs., Mr. Varun Chandiok, Mr. Yashwant Sanenbam, Advs. Mr. AP Singh, Mr. Varnit Vashistha, Advs. For the Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr Kanishk Maurya Adv. for DoE. JUDGMENT PER NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) 1. These appeals have been filed under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, challenging the orders passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi in the appeals reference of which is being given in the form of chart herein under. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he alleged contravention of various provisions of The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973( FERA Act, 1973 ), as well as of Para 13B.22 of Chapter 13 of the Exchange Control Manual, 1993 in some of the appeals, are liable to be quashed on the ground of delay alone. In support of their plea, they have placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Citi Bank N.A., (2022) 19 SCC 188. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the above judgment would have no application on the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the inquiry against the appellants had been initiated in the year 1995 itself. The appellants, therefore, cannot take the plea of destruction of the records in te....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties held that, even where a period of limitation is not provided in the statute, the authorities are required to initiate the proceedings within a reasonable period; the reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court then relied upon Rule 2, 3 and 4 of the Banking Companies (Period of Preservation of Records) Rules, 1985 and held that as the said rules require the preservation of records for a period of 5/8 years unless otherwise directed by the Reserve Bank of India for the record to be preserved for a longer period. The Show Cause Notice(s) issued therein were held to be liable to be quashed on the ground of delay alone. We quote from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said Rules. 27. Undisputedly, no such order has been placed on record which required the respondent Banks to preserve records concerning the transactions in question for a period longer than eight years. 28. It could thus be seen that even under the said Rules, the Banks are required to preserve the record for five years and eight years, respectively. On this ground also, permitting the show-cause notices and the proceedings continued thereunder of the transactions which have taken place much prior to eight years would be unfair and unreasonable." 8. In the present batch of appeals, though for some the period in question is extending till August, 1994, the initial period ranges from January, 1990 onwards. The Show C....