IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through the Ministry of Finance Government of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 19973 of 2022 (GM - FE)
Decided On : 21-04-2023
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Section 37A, (1), (3), (5) - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 131 (1) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19, 14, 21, 31(1), 15, 16 - Constitutional validity - Order of seizure - Petitioner questioning constitutional validity of Section 37A of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and has sought certain consequential prayers of quashment of seizure order under Section 37A(1) and confirmation order of such seizure under Section 37A(3) of Act - Every submission of petitioner is noted, considered threadbare and answered by Competent Authority – Para 35.
Finding of the Court: Only reason that is projected by petitioners to knock at doors of Court despite remedy of filing an appeal before Appellate Tribunal being appealable under subsection (5) of Section 37A of Act is that order of Competent Authority affirming seizure by Authorised Officer does not bear application of mind - It is trite law that application of mind is discernible from any order, if order contains reasons for passing one, it would have been an altogether different circumstance if there were no reasons recorded in writing by Competent Authority for Court to hold that order suffered from non-application of mind – Court decline to accept submission that order suffers from non-application of mind on perusal of entire content in order - Every submission of petitioner is noted, considered threadbare and answered by Competent Authority - Competent Authority has not left any wood on tree - Therefore, only circumstance which petitioner projects apart from challenging constitutional validity for entertainment of subject writ petition tumbles down, as order of Competent Authority does bear the stamp of application of mind through order - Therefore, it is for petitioner to avail of remedy of filing an appeal before Appellate Tribunal - Challenge to constitutional validity of Section 37A of Act is rejected, as Section 37A does not suffer from any manifest arbitrariness on any ground whatsoever.
Result: Petition rejected.
ORDER :
The petitioner-Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’ for short) has knocked at the doors of this Court questioning the constitutional validity of Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (‘the Act’ for short) and has sought certain consequential prayers of quashment of seizure order under Section 37A(1) and confirmation order of such seizure under Section 37A(3) of the Act.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts germane to be noticed are as follows:-
The petitioner claims to be a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and it further claims that the Board of Directors of the petitioner/ Company is constituted only of Indian citizens. More than 1500 employees and around 50,000 Indian families are directly or indirectly dependent on the business of the petitioner who, as claimed by the petitioner, are Indian citizens. The petitioner gets incorporated as a Private Limited Company on 7-10-2014 as a subsidiary of Xiaomi Singapore Private Limited and Xiaomi H.K. Limited and is engaged in the business of procurement, supply and distribution of Xiaomi products in India which is popularly referred to as ‘MI’. The business of the petitioner includes mobile phones, smart phones, mobile phone accessories and peripherals, smart watches, televisions, network component devices, laptops, computers, television accessories and the list goes on. The petitioner operates as a re-seller/distributor of mobile phones and related products in India. It is mainly in the distribution segment.
3. The petitioner claims to be purchasing locally manufactured smart phones for re-sale from third party Indian manufacturers, import spare parts, accessories, mobile phones and other products from its group entities viz., Xiaomi H.K. Limited and Zhuhai Xiaomi Communication Company Limited. The petitioner claims to be the largest smart phone brand in India having 1,500 employees working under it. The petitioner claims to be regularly filing its income tax returns and is assessed to income tax even up to 201819 and the petitioner in addition to paying income tax is also subjected to investigation by Customs Department and other entities. This does not concern the petition.
4. In the month of February, 2022 the petitioner claims to have become aware of summons dated 4-01-2022 addressed to one Mr. Nitin Ajage in the office of the petitioner. The summons was issued under Section 37(1) and 37(3) of the Act read with Section 131 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner claims that the summons came to the attention of the petitioner Company around February 2022 and due to third wave of COVID-19, no further steps were taken to take the summons forward. The 3rd respondent/Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement issues second summons on 25-02-2022 again on one Mr. Manu Jain who is said to have resigned from the Company and finally the Company had to comply with the submission of documents as was sought by the Directorate of Enforcement which was done by 08th March, 2022.
5. The 2nd respondent/Directorate of Enforcement initiated investigation against the petitioner following the inputs from the Income Tax Department relating to certain remittances of royalty made by the petitioner to certain foreign entities viz., (i) Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Tech Inc. and (ii) Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Company Limited. The royalty that is paid to Qualcomm Inc. Qualcomm Tech Inc., USA and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Company Limited forms the fulcrum of the present lis. Qualcomm Inc. and Qualcomm Technologies Inc. (referred to as “Qualcomm” for short) are the leading wireless technology innovators including code division multiple access technology. Qualcomm has developed certain valuable leading intellectual property across a number of areas which are foundational to mobile experiences.
6. The petitioner claims to be the beneficiary of Qualcomm’s proprietary and lic
Attorney General for India and Others v. Amratlal Prajivandas and Others
The State of Punjab and Another v. Khan Chand
Charles K. Skaria and Others v. Dr. C. Mathew and Others
Ebrahim Vazir Mavat v. State of Bombay and Others
Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others
AIR India v. Nergesh Meerza and Others
State of Maharashtra and Another v. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association and Others
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others
Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another v. Pepsi Foods Limited
Raman Tech. and Process Engg. Co. and Another v. Solanki Traders
Bhudan Singh and Another v. Nabi Bux and Another
Government of A.P. v. H.E.H. The Nizam, Hyderabad
Devi Das Gopal Krishnan Etc. v. State of Punjab and Others
Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Another
Thomson-Csf and Others v. National Airport Authority of India and Others
K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of T.N.
State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co.
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat
State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd.
Mohd. Yasin v. Town Area Committee, Jalalabad
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India
Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P.
Huang v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt.
Bank Mellat v. Her Majesty's Treasury (No. 2)
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
Swiss Ribbons (P) Limited v. Union of INDIA
Manish Kumar v. Union of India
Chitra Sharma v. Union of India
Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India
Article 14 of Constitution embodies principles of equality before law and equal protection of laws.
, time can be extended for a further period of six month. Appropriate order for extension of period of provisional attachment would only be passed upon satisfaction of the criteria listed out. An inj....
Provisional attachment of bank accounts under GST Section 83 is invalid absent recorded opinion based on tangible material showing necessity to protect revenue; strict compliance mandatory, non-adher....
Provisional attachment order - Act itself does not provide any opportunity of hearing to concerned party prior to passing of order of provisions attached under Section 5 of Act. Rightly so as after o....
Provisional attachment under Section 83 of GST Act invalid without proper officer forming and recording opinion, based on tangible material, that it is necessary for revenue protection prior to order....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.