TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereby the applications filed by the petitioners for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amounts have been partly allowed. 2. For the sake of clarity, the name of the petitioner(s), penalty imposed, contravention amount and pre-deposit amount required to be deposited by the petitioners, as per Impugned Order, is extracted as under: Petitioner name Penalty imposed Contravention amount Pre-deposit amount as per impugned order Pankaj Gupta Rs. 42,00,000/- Contravention of Section 3(d) of FEMA, 1999 to the extent of Rs. 82,37,000/- Rs. 4,20,000/- Late Dalip Srivastava Rs. 72,00,000/- Contravention of Section 3(d) of FEMA, 1999 to the extent of Rs. 1,40,91,000/- Rs. 7,20,000/- Shashank Srivastava Rs. 74,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mit that they do not have sufficient financial resources to adhere to the directions for pre-deposit of the amount as is imposed in the Impugned Order. 7. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Enforcement of Directorate ("ED") strongly opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that if the Impugned Order is perused carefully, the same would clearly justify the imposition of 10% penalty amount. He also submits that the Appellate Authority has already bestowed its due consideration in requiring the petitioners to deposit only the 10% of the penalty amount imposed on them by the Adjudicating Authority. 8. Additionally, Mr. Gurnani brings to the notice of the Court paragraph no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wards outward remittances and they had given signed blank cheques to a person named as Shri Sunil Garg for the same, as evident from their voluntary statement and now the contention of the noticees that the said transactions are part of bill discounting business is self-contradicting. Further, Noticees - 2, 3 and 4 had not furnished any details of the buyer and the seller and the invoices pertaining to them and even they had not disclosed the commission they earned out of the said bill discounting business. Further, the noticees had not disclosed any details/ whereabouts of the so called Shri Sunil Garg. Whether he is a real person or fictitious person is also not known. Accordingly, I find that it is an afterthought and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he entirety of the facts and circumstances, decided to exercise its discretion provided for under the second proviso to Section 19. In doing so, the terms to which it subjected the petitioners was-a deposit of 10% of the penalty amount. It is, therefore, the case that the powers vested with the authority were exercised by it, and upon a satisfaction of "undue hardship being reached", conditions that it deemed fit were imposed. 12. The present petition, in exclusion to claims such as non-performance or dereliction of statutory duty, can only assail the terms i.e., 10% of penalty amount being required to be pre-deposited (or in other words, 90% and not a 100% waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount being given), before this Court. Qua this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Appeal, and cannot step into the shoes of the specialised tribunal/authority to displace the findings rendered by it. 16. The decision of this Court in Nimesh Suchde (supra) would have no application as, in that case the Appellate Authority has dismissed in toto the application of the petitioner therein, for a waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount. Further, in the said case, the original order passed by Adjudicating Authority, was found to be prima facie unsustainable by this Court. Similarly, the decision in Priya Shah (supra) was also rendered on completely different facts. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners would, thus, not have any application. 17. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, the Court fi....