$~67

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4000/2018
OFFSET INDIA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD AND ORS
...... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Arvind P. Datar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Kabeer Srivastava, Adv.

versus

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Amit Mahajan, CGSC with Ms. Mallika
and Mr. Madhav Chitale, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 23.04.2018

1. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.12.2017,

passed by the Enforcement Directorate. It is the petitioner‟s case that notices
were issued under Section 10(1) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign
Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (in short “2015 Act”).
These notices, according to the petitioner, were issued on 22.09.2016, based
on the charge levelled against the petitioner that he had undisclosed foreign
assets located in UAE, UK and Panama.
2. To be noted, in the backdrop of this development a provisional
attachment order dated 20.02.2017 was passed under the provisions of

W.P.(C) 4000/2018 1 of 3
Section 84 of 2015 Act read with Section 281 (B) of the Income Tax Act
1961 (in short “IT Act”).
3. However, the Adjudicating Authority constituted under the provisions
of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “PMLA”) vide its order dated
17.11.2017 refused to confirm the order of provisional attachment.
4. It is thus the contention of Mr. Datar, learned senior counsel, that the
petitioner in essence is being asked to answer the same charge which has
been repelled by the Adjudicating Authority, that is, alleged acquisition of
assets outside India, by taking recourse to Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1999 (in short “1999 Act”) which, in sum, prohibits a
person from acquiring assets outside India.
4.1 The other submission of by Mr. Datar is that in calculating the value
of moneys alleged to be held by the petitioner outside India, the respondent
has simply totalled up the credit entries without squaring them off against
the debt entries.
4.2 For this purpose, Mr.Datar has placed before me the certified copy of
the order of the Adjudicating Authority, constituted under PMLA. In
particular my attention has been drawn to the following part of the order
passed by the Adjudicating Authority:
“....What the Income-tax has taken into account is the total
credit in the said account. No such record is probably
tendered to the Enforcement Directorate or atleast the same
is not relied upon by the Joint

W.P.(C) 4000/2018 2 of 3
 Director while passing the order as the same does not form
part of the RUD. The valuation thus seems to be not
rational....”

5. Mr. Mahajan, who appears on advance notice, says that an appeal has
been preferred against the order dated 17.11.2017, passed by the
Adjudicating Authority.
6. Counsel for the parties, however, affirm that there is no stay on the
operation of the order dated 17.11.2017.
7. Accordingly, issue notice. Mr. Mahajan accepts notice on behalf of
the respondent.
7.1 Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder
thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
8. Till the next date of hearing, the respondent will maintain status quo.
9. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner to move an appropriate
application for release of moneys from the bank accounts which are adverted
to in the impugned order for the purposes of carrying out day-to-day
business and payment of salaries of employees.
9.1 In case any such application is moved, advance notice of at least 7
days, will be given to the respondent and its counsel.
10. Renotify the matter on 26.10.2018.
11. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
APRIL 23, 2018
neelam
W.P.(C) 4000/2018 3 of 3