9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue Recovery Act to recover the amount and that has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same is opposed to the principles enunciated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act - Held that:- It is certainly not open to the petitioner to quash the validity of such order of the Appellate Tribunal especially when the third respondent has proceeded to recover the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act - Tribunal’s order was on 17-3-2007 and the petitioner has chosen to challenge the same only in the year 2010 without resorting to the remedy of appeal to the High Court within 60 days and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed - writ petition fails and the same is dismissed - 1655 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 4-8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal to the second respondent Appellate Tribunal. As per the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for preferring an appeal against the order of enforcement authorities, the petitioner has to pre-deposit of the penalty amount and the petitioner has filed an application before the second respondent Appellate Tribunal to dispense with the pre-deposit of the penalty amount on the basis that he is a poor person and his average monthly income is Rs. 1,500/- per month and he has no immovable properties of his own. In spite of the same, it is stated that the second respondent Tribunal by order dated 9-3-2007 directed the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount which is the pre-deposit amount within a period of 30 days. The petitioner w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is available and therefore, without exhausting the remedy of appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. But the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while it is true that the first respondent has on enquiry passed an order, the petitioner through her counsel on 9-1-2007 addressed to the Appellate Tribunal has requested the Tribunal as per Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to dispense with the obligation of pre-deposit and any order passed by the Tribunal in directing the petitioner to pay the pre-deposit amount should have been intimated to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner either to pay the amount or not. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently repealed, against the order of the Appellate Tribunal Section 54 of the erstwhile Act provided an appeal to the High Court which relates to the question of law which is raised from the order of the Appellate Court. In the meantime, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act has been superseded by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. While repealing the Act under Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 any Act under the earlier Act has been saved. Therefore, by virtue of the saving clause in spite of repealing of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, action taken against the petitioner, is deemed to be action taken under the Foreign Exchange Management Act. Under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Manage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
