Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (11) TMI 618

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... een given the benefit and no penalty imposed upon him. Rule of equality would apply in this matter. Discrimination of the department cannot be accepted. The impugned order deals with the violations committed by the persons in charge of MVR Group of companies. The Appellant was neither part of the management managing the affairs of the MVR group of companies nor was he in any way concerned with the company. This fact has been clearly acknowledged by the Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order. Yet the Adjudicating Authority chooses to impose the penalty on the Appellant. Having found nothing against the Appellant, the Adjudicating Authority ought not to have imposed the penalty. In the impugned order the Adjudicating Au .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e State Bank of Hyderabad in the Managerial capacity. He voluntarily left the employment around twenty years ago due to his health condition and has been working as a Consultant in the financial area to various clients on referral basis. 4. One MVR group attached the Appellant and asked him to come on board in the capacity of a Director so as to lend weight to his opinions regarding the company‟s financial recovery. 5. The Appellant was inducted as a Director during the month of March 1996 in M/s Maxwell Exim Foods Ltd. The appellant was inducted in an advisory capacity and not for the purpose of day to day functions of the company as it appears from a letter to the Appellant dated 30.03.1996 (in reply to his letter dated 27.03. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .1996, the Appellant resigned from his Directorship as no single Board meeting was convened since the time of his joining; coupled with his ill health. 9. It was stated by the Appellant, when he was called for rendered his full and honest co-operation to the Officers of the Respondent and he did the same. It is stated that even about the innocence of the Appellant as they did not call him after taking his statement unlike the case with other noticees. 10. The Appellant was neither part of the company nor was he concerned with the exports pertaining to the subject show cause notice from which the impugned order emanates. It is argued on his behalf that the show cause notice in fact does not allege any role of the Appellant in the viola .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e in precedence to Noticee No. 14. 14. The Appellant admittedly resigned on not holding any Board meetings. All these circumstances established that the Appellant has acted cautiously and legitimately within the parameters of the law, as was expected of a prudent law abiding citizen. 15. There was nothing to explained in the impugned order that why Noticee No. 14 i.e., Shri S. Srinivasa Ragavahan had similarly taken precautions as that of the Appellant, yet the Special Director singles him out for a lenient view and refrains from imposing any penalty. 16. It is evident that such action of the Special Director is discriminatory and illegal. Therefore, the impugned order in so far as the Appellant is concerned is perverse and arbitra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uthority ought not to have imposed the penalty. 20. In the impugned order the Adjudicating Authority found nothing against the Appellant, however, the Special Director observes erroneously that the Appellant ought to have exercised due diligence in knowing the details of the company and his responsibilities which he failed to do so and thereby rendered himself responsible to the non-realisation of export sale proceeds and thus contravened the provisions of Section 18(2) 18(3) of FERA. 21. The impugned order suffers from legal infirmities and the same is liable to be set aside. 22. The Appellant filed the reply (dated 30.03.1996) in good faith who acted as would expect from any prudent person, in these circumstances, the Special D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates