TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1016
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akar Kulkarni For the Petitioners in Rev.Aplw.Nos.81 and 82/2025 : Mr.Sathish Parasaran Senior Advocate for M/s.N.C.Ashok Kumar For the Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh Special Public Prosecutor (ED Cases) (in all cases) COMMON ORDER These Review Applications have been filed challenging the order passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.18630 of 2021 and other cases dated 29.01.2025. 2. The main writ petitions were filed challenging the complaint made by 3rd respondent in writ petition against the petitioners complaining violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act (hereinafter called as FEMA) and Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter called as TISPRO Regulations) and the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition dated 01.07.2021 against the petitioners based on the complaint of the 3rd respondent. After hearing the petitioners, all the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court by upholding the preliminary objection raised by the respondents regarding maintainability of the writ petitions by pointing out hierarchy of remedies under the Act including the appeal before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmissions by counsel for Respondents: The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the scope of review applications is very limited and the petitioners are not entitled to re-argue the writ petitions in the review applications. It is also submitted that the writ petitions were disposed of on preliminary issue of availability of alternative remedy and hence the petitioners are not entitled to argue the merits of the case that too in review applications. 6. Discussions: It was vehemently contended by the petitioners that there was delay of more than a decade in issuing the show cause notice from the date of alleged violation and failure of the respondent to issue notice within reasonable period violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The delay in issuing notice had been considered by this Court in the writ order specifically in paragraph Nos.31 to 36 of the writ order. It was held that the reasonableness of the delay in issuing the notice depends on various facts and circumstances and the said factual aspects could be raised by the petitioners before the respondents in their answer to the show cause notice and the same could be considered b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 held that notices issued with a delay of more than five years were barred in law. Therefore, according to the applicants, in the case on hand, the impugned notice issued beyond the period of five years is liable to be quashed. 10. In the writ order, this Court considered Bhatinda case cited supra and came to the conclusion that maximum period of five years was fixed by the Apex Court by taking into consideration, the scheme of the said Act. Therefore, the same cannot be made applicable as the general rule to all the cases. Hence, the submission made by the petitioners was already addressed in the writ order and the same cannot be raised again in review applications. It is to be pointed out that the statements of some of the applicants were recorded on 05.10.2015 and 08.10.2015. Therefore, the five years period expired during October 2020. However, before expiry of the period, the Covid outbreak came into existence and there was a lockdown and suspension of limitation period from 15.10.2020 to 28.02.2022. The impugned show cause notices have been issued well within that suspension period on 01.07.2021. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, notice issued by him was made within reasonable period. In the writ order, after considering Citi Bank case and Bhatinda case in paragraph Nos.32 to 34, in paragraph No.35, this Court observed that the reasonableness of the delay in issuing show cause notice depended on facts and circumstances of the case and the said aspect could be raised by the petitioners before the second respondent. The said observation made by this Court in the writ order is in consonance with the ratio laid down in Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals case cited supra. At the risk of repetition, this Court points out that what is the reasonable period is depending on various facts and circumstances and the said factual aspects could be raised before the adjudicating authority. Any decision of the adjudicatory authority on the reasonableness of delay is liable to be questioned by the aggrieved party before the Appellate Tribunal as well as before this Court in a further appeal under Section 35 of FEMA Act. In view of the same, this Court is unable to review its decision passed in these writ petitions on the question of delay aspect. 13. It was vehemently contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned before the Appellate Tribunal and this Court under special appeals. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the same as the petitioners are entitled to raise the points before the adjudicatory authority. 16. It was submitted by some of the applicants that they exited from the company even before issuance of notification by Reserve Bank of India and therefore, technically there was no violation of the notification under FEMA by the said applicants. Whether the applicants were or were not Directors of the company at the relevant point of time and whether there was any violation are all the questions of fact which can be decided by the adjudicatory authority. The petitioners are at liberty to raise all these points in their response to the show cause notice before the adjudicatory authority and the authority can take a call on the merits of the claim made by the applicants. 17. It was also submitted by the applicants that the expression "Group Company" was not defined under the FDI policy and the same was defined only on 04.10.2013 by notification. 18. If it is the case of the petitioners that there was no proper definition of the expression "Group Company" a....