Skip to main content

Sebi gets back discretionary powers on penalties

By
The Finance Bill 2017 has inserted an explanation that does away with the ambiguity regarding the discretionary powers of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) in deciding the quantum of penalty levied against companies. This will provide relief to several companies reeling under heavy penalties post the Supreme Court’s Roofit judgment in 2015.
The SC had, in its ruling in the matter of Roofit Industries in November 2015, said that Sebi had no discretionary power under Section 15J of the SEBI Act, 1992 to reduce penalties imposed on companies. Following the judgment, penalty of crores of rupees was levied by Sebi in different matters. This led to the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) remanding several matters back to Sebi and quite a few appeals being withdrawn by the appellants fearing higher penalties. 
“The inclusion of the explanation has finally settled the position and done away with the conflict in the minds of the regulator and the appellate body as to their powers. This will bring much-needed respite to capital market participants who were being subjected to heavy penalties even for trivial procedural non-compliances," said Deepika Vijay Sawhney, partner - securities law & transaction advisory, Corporate Professionals.
The relief will be for offences committed between October 2002 and September 2014, as the penal provisions of the Sebi Act were amended with effect from September 2014.
In its November 2015 ruling, the SC had observed that the formula used for the reduction of penalty by SAT in the Roofit case was not forthcoming, making the exercise arbitrary. SAT had modified the order of the adjudicating officer under Sebi and reduced the penalty payable by Roofit Industries under Section 15A of the Securities And Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (Sebi Act) from Rs 1 crore to Rs 60,000.
The SC bench had pointed out that penalties should not be reduced on extraneous grounds other than that mentioned under Section 15J. The factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer under Section 15J include the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage made as a result of the default; the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors and the repetitive nature of the default.
Prior to this judgment, both Sebi and SAT examined the gravity of the offence as well as the conduct and financial condition of the entity before levying penalties. SAT, at times, reduced the penalty even on humanitarian grounds.
“It is a welcome move as it will bring rationality to the process of imposing penalty," said Sandeep Parekh, managing partner, Finsec Law Advisors, adding that some level of discretion is required in imposing penalty. “Imposing maximum penalty under law can lead to disproportionate penalties being levied even for minor infractions."
Interestingly, Sebi itself had filed for a review before the apex court on the Roofit judgement last year. However, during the pendency of the review petition, a two-member division bench of the SC had differed with the views in the Roofit judgement in the matter of Siddharth Chaturvedi versus Sebi.  In its order of March 2016 pertaining to this case, the bench had referred the matter to a larger three-member SC bench, creating further ambiguity regarding the imposition of penalties
The Roofit Saga
  • In its ruling in the matter of Roofit Industries in November 2015, the Supreme Court said that Sebi had no discretionary powers to decide on penalties 
  • Following the judgment, Sebi started levying flat/maximum penalties 
  • Delayed/non-filing of return or non-furnishing/delayed furnishing of information, for instance, attracted the maximum penalty of Rs 1 lakh per day
  • .Sebi subsequently asked for a review of the SC decision after being criticised for levying high penalties
  • In March 2015, in another case, a division bench of the SC differed with the Roofit judgement
  • The Bench referred the matter to a larger SC bench
  • Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) started sending several matters back to Sebi, reportedly because of maximum penalties in all cases
  • Several appellants withdrew their appeals fearing higher penalties by Sebi 
  • .An explanation in the Finance Bill 2017 has given back Sebi its discretionary powers in terms of amount of penalty to be imposed  
This will provide relief for alleged offences committed between Oct 2002 and Sep 2014
Business Standard New Delhi,29th March 2017

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

New income tax slab and rates for new tax regime FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-25) announced in Budget 2023

By
  Basic exemption limit has been hiked to Rs.3 lakh from Rs 2.5 currently under the new income tax regime in Budget 2023. Further, the income tax slabs in the new tax regime has been changed. According to the announcement, 5 income tax slabs will be there in FY 2023-24, from 6 income tax slabs currently. A rebate under Section 87A has been enhanced under the new tax regime; from the current income level of Rs.5 lakh to Rs.7 lakh. Thus, individuals opting for the new income tax regime and having an income up to Rs.7 lakh will not pay any taxes   The income tax slabs under the new income tax regime will now be as follows: Rs 0 to Rs 3 lakh - 0% tax rate Rs 3 lakh to 6 lakh - 5% Rs 6 lakh to 9 lakh - 10% Rs 9 lakh to Rs 12 lakh - 15% Rs 12 lakh to Rs 15 lakh - 20% Above Rs 15 lakh - 30%   The revised Income tax slabs under new tax regime for FY 2023-24 (AY 2024-25)   Income tax slabs under new tax regime Income tax rates under new tax regime O to Rs 3 lakh 0 Rs 3 lakh to Rs 6 lakh 5% Rs 6
Post a Comment
Read more

Jaitley plans to cut MSME tax rate to 25%

By
Income tax for companies with annual turnover up to ?50 crore has been reduced to 25% from 30% in order to make Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) companies more viable and also to encourage firms to migrate to a company format. This move will benefit 96% or 6.67 lakh of the 6.94 lakh companies filing returns of lower taxation and make MSME sector more competitive as compared with large companies. However, bigger firms have shown their disappointment since the proposal for reducing tax rates was to make Indian firms competitive globally and it is the large firms that are competing globally. The Finance Minister foregone revenue estimate of Rs 7,200 crore per annum for this for this measure. Besides, the Finance Minister refrained from removing or reducing Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT), a popular demand from India Inc., but provided a higher period of 15 years for carry forward of future credit claims, instead of the existing 10-year period. “It is not practical to rem
1 comment
Read more

Don't forget to verify your income tax return in August: Here's the process

By
  An ITR return needs to be verified within 120 days of filing of tax return. Now that you have filed your income tax return, remember to verify it because your return filing process is not complete unless you do so. The CBDT has reduced the time limit of ITR verification to 30 days (from 120 days) from the date of return submission. The new rule is applicable for the returns filed online on or after 1st August 2022. E-verification is the most convenient and instant method for verifying your ITR. However, if you prefer not to e-verify, you have the option to verify it by sending a physical copy of the ITR-V. Taxpayers who filed returns by July 31, 2023 but forget to verify their tax returns, will get the following email from the tax department, as per ClearTax. If your ITR is not verified within 30 days of e-filing, it will be considered invalid, and may be liable to pay a Late Fee. Aadhaar OTP | EVC through bank account | EVC through Demat account | Sending duly signed ITR-V through s
Post a Comment
Read more