Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeCompany & PMLAKarnataka High Court Directs Google India to Furnish 50% Bank Guarantee in...

Karnataka High Court Directs Google India to Furnish 50% Bank Guarantee in FEMA Violation Case [READ ORDER]

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Karnataka High Court has instructed Google India Pvt Ltd (GIPL) and three of its senior executives to submit bank guarantees covering 50% of the penalties imposed for alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). 

The total penalties amount to ₹5.45 crore, with ₹5 crore levied on GIPL and ₹45 lakh collectively on the executives.

The bench comprising Justice V. Kameshwar Rao and Justice S. Rachaiah noted that the appellate tribunal’s earlier stay on the penalties was a prima facie observation. Consequently, the High Court directed GIPL and the involved executives to furnish bank guarantees for 50% of the imposed penalties within two weeks.

Background of the Case

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleges that GIPL engaged in unauthorized transactions totaling ₹364 crore. These transactions include distributor fees paid to Google Ireland and equipment purchases from Google US. The ED contends that these payments, made without prior approval from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), effectively constitute unapproved commercial loans, thereby violating Section 6(3)(d) of FEMA.

Specifically, the ED highlighted that ₹363 crore owed to Google Ireland remained unpaid for over four years until May 2014, while ₹1 crore in assets from Google US stayed outstanding for over seven years until January 2014. The agency asserts that such prolonged outstanding payments necessitated RBI approval, which was not obtained.

Google’s Defense

Google India has refuted the ED’s allegations, arguing that the transactions in question do not qualify as foreign exchange borrowings under FEMA. The company maintains that there were no formal loan agreements, deferred payments, or interest components involved. Furthermore, Google India cited compliance with an RBI circular dated July 1, 2014, to support its position.

Case Details

Case Title: The Deputy Director Versus Google India

Case No.: MSA NO. 42 OF 2019

Date: 20/04/2025

Counsel For Petitioner: Jayakara Shetty H

Counsel For Respondent: Naresh Thacker 

Read More: Who Are Customs Officers? Roles, Powers & Legal Provisions Explained

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 – SRI SUJIT DAS AND ORS. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

This Article pertaining to FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 - SRI SUJIT DAS...

GST Notice Despite Advance Ruling: Gujarat High Court Restrains Final Order Without Its Permission

The Gujarat High Court has granted ad-interim protection to a company challenging proceedings under...

GST Demand Based On Return Scrutiny Requires Prior ASMT-10 Notice: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has set aside a GST demand proceeding involving alleged under-declaration...

Govt. Funding Doesn’t Establish Eligibility For 12% GST On Spinning Mill Construction: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Pune Bench, has upheld 18% GST...

More like this

FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 – SRI SUJIT DAS AND ORS. ETC. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

This Article pertaining to FREEDOM SUPREME – 2026 INSC 1195 - SRI SUJIT DAS...

GST Notice Despite Advance Ruling: Gujarat High Court Restrains Final Order Without Its Permission

The Gujarat High Court has granted ad-interim protection to a company challenging proceedings under...

GST Demand Based On Return Scrutiny Requires Prior ASMT-10 Notice: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has set aside a GST demand proceeding involving alleged under-declaration...