Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (3) TMI 823

ty imposed - separate license to companies and all its branches - HELD THAT:- Considering that the RBI grants license to the company as well as its branches separately, a fact which was reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant, RMEL, Varanasi cannot take shelter under the main RMEL company located at Mumbai. - From the emails it is clear that the consignment was sent from Varanasi. It belies common sense that if the transaction had been undertaken by the Lucknow branch as the appellants have tried to argue at one stage then why should the money/consignment/package be not transferred from Lucknow to Cochin their hub and why carry it to Varanasi and then send it to Cochin. Even the statement of Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, S .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

rook, Advocate, Shri Shubail Farook, Advocate And Shri Praful Jindal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Aagam Kaur, Legal Consultant JUDGEMENT FPA-FE-37/LKW/2014 & FPA-FE-38/LKW/2014 1. The above two appellants have filed two appeals against the adjudication order ADJ/16/LZO/2014/JD (VP) dated 30.05.2014. Briefly, the case is that a transaction in foreign exchange was undertaken by the Varanasi branch of the company Reliance Money Express Ltd. (RMEL) equivalent to ₹ 1,25,30,000/- with another company M/s. Global Forex & Travels, Varanasi, that both of them at the time of transaction did not hold any license from the RBI to conduct the said business of money exchange. The adjudicating authority held the appellants to have cont .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

avily. vi. That the company has filed a criminal complaint against two of its employees and Shri Samaddar under Section 190(1) Cr.Pc in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. vii. That the adjudicating authority has imposed a consolidated penalty which is blatantly illegal more so because it is not clear as to whether penalties are imposed for all the offences alleged or for some offence. 2. They relied on the following judgment: a. Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. CBI, (2015), 4 SCC 609 b. Sitaram Motilal Kalal vs. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt (1966) 3, SCR 527 c. Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. DRI, (2018) 8 SCC 271. 3. On behalf of second appellant Shri Souvik Dasgupta, it was submitted as follows: i. That the appellant was the zonal head o .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ed these dealings were done as per the instructions of Shri Souvik Dasgupta. Therefore there is no ground to levy any penalty on him. Moreover, even the company has not filed any criminal case against him which shows his bonafide. 3. They relied on the following two judgments: a. Haricharan Kurmi & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar (1964) AIR SC 1184 b. Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. DRI, (2018) 8 SCC 271 4. On behalf of the respondent, the learned counsel stated the following: i. That branches are a part of the company, therefore, the company is responsible. She referred to the definition of a person‟ in Section 2(u)(vii). ii. That the transaction has taken place is not denied and the benefit therefore has flown to the company. She referred to .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ted fact not denied by either party. That the transaction had taken place with M/s. Global Forex & Travels is also not denied. Whether M/.S Global Forex & Travels had a valid license or not is not an issue before me as they are not in appeal before me. Considering that the RBI grants license to the company as well as its branches separately, a fact which was reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant, RMEL, Varanasi cannot take shelter under the main RMEL company located at Mumbai. From the emails as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that the consignment was sent from Varanasi. It belies common sense that if the transaction had been undertaken by the Lucknow branch as the appellants have tri .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||