9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, judicial expansion of scope of the Rule, if causes prejudice to the interest of the proceedings, the same need not be adopted. The plain reading of the Rule would indicate that the Adjudicating Authority has to form an opinion for the purpose of issuing a show cause notice by fixing the date for appearance of the person either personally or through his legal practitioner or a Chartered Accountant. Such a plain procedure contemplated cannot be further interpreted for the purpose of providing a scope for the person to seek the reasons formed by the Authorities. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of India Cements vs. Union of India [ 2018 (6) TMI 389 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] considered the Bombay High Court Judgment as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the S.L.P., at the admission stage and the principles laid down by the learned Single Judge in the case of Ramakrishna Setty [ 2014 (8) TMI 1105 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] De horse the decisions, reading of the Rules would indicate that furnishing the reasons to the persons is not mandated nor expressly stated. Therefore, entertaining a writ petition during the intermittent stage would hamper the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) has not been provided. Since, the impugned personal hearing notice was issued on 04.04.2024, without providing reasoned opinion formed under Rule 4 (3) of the said Rules, the writ petition came to be instituted. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that it is mandatory on the part of the respondent to furnish the reasoned opinion recorded for the purpose of proceeding with the case. Thus, fixing date for personal hearing without furnishing the reasoned opinion is in violation of the Rules and the Judgment of the Bombay High Court and the consequential circular issued by the Directorate of Enforcement on 26.09.2024, implementing the Judgment of the Bombay High Court as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Further, it is submitted that the learned single judge of High Court of Madras also followed the Bombay High Court judgment with reference to Rule 4 (3) as state above. 6. Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent would oppose by stating that plain reading of the Rule would explicitly reveal that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the learned Single Judge erred in not following the ratio of the decisions of the Division Benches of the Bombay High Court. 12. Mr.P.R.Raman,learned Senior Counsel would also point out that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment in Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar v. Union of India and another referred to supra was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 04.07.2014. A downloaded record of the proceedings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been produced before us. .................... 23. This Court had in fact disagreed with the interpretation of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar v. Union of India and another cited supra. Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would draw our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer and others reported in MANU/SC/1053/2002 : (259) ITR 19,wherein, the provisions of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were considered and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while reopening an assessment under Sections 147 and 148 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y condition subject to which an authorisation is issued by the Reserve Bank of India in respect of which contravention is alleged to have taken place. .... 9. Rule 4(3) unambiguously stipulates that after considering the cause, if any, shown by such person, the Adjudicating Authority is of the opinion that an inquiry should be held, he shall issue a notice fixing the date of appearance of that person either personally or through his legal practitioner or Chartered Accountant duly authorised by him. 10. Plain reading of the Rule reveals that there is no express provision or intention to communicate such reasons to the person against whom the proceedings are initiated by the Enforcement Directorate. Only through judicial interpretation by the Bombay High Court, the scope of the Rule has been expanded for the purpose of communicating the reasoned opinion to the person against whom proceedings are initiated. 11. Incorporating additional clause or expanding the provision undoubtedly would cause prejudice to the interest of the Department for further investigation or process. It is an initial stage after show cause notice, where competent Authority has to form an opinion under Rule 4 (3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nitiated. 15. Act and Rules contemplate check and balance to ensure that a person subjected to the proceedings get fair opportunity. However, expanding scope of the Rule under the guise of fair opportunity would defeat the purpose of the Rule and the procedures contemplated therein. Therefore, judicial expansion of scope of the Rule, if causes prejudice to the interest of the proceedings, the same need not be adopted. The plain reading of the Rule would indicate that the Adjudicating Authority has to form an opinion for the purpose of issuing a show cause notice by fixing the date for appearance of the person either personally or through his legal practitioner or a Chartered Accountant. Such a plain procedure contemplated cannot be further interpreted for the purpose of providing a scope for the person to seek the reasons formed by the Authorities. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of India Cements vs. Union of India considered the Bombay High Court Judgment as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the S.L.P., at the admission stage and the principles laid down by the learned Single Judge in the case of Ramakrishna Setty. De horse the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
