News Details- (Get Professional Updates on Whatsapp, Msg on
8285393786) More
News
No research backing RBI's move to ban cryptocurrencies
In a response to the RTI application filed by a startup consultant, Varun Sethi, on April 9, the central bank said it does not have an internal committee that looks into VCs. However, the RBI is part of two different committees that have been constituted under the Ministry of Finance to study virtual currencies in India. The RBI responded saying “No” to questions related to formation of a committee within the regulator to understand the working of VCs. ET has seen the RTI response.
“The RBI specifically mentions that it conducted no research or consultation before the implementation of restriction in April. The RBI also responded that no committee was ever formed for analysing the concept of blockchain before the decision,” said Sethi, a lawyer and founder of blockchainlawyer.in.
A mail to RBI seeking comment remained unanswered till press time on Tuesday.
On April 6, the RBI through its notice titled ‘Prohibition on dealing in Virtual Currencies’, mandated banks, e-wallets, and payment gateway providers to withdraw support for cryptocurrency exchanges and other businesses dealing with VCs in India.
Banks in turn forced exchanges and traders to stop using their accounts for trading in VCs. This led them to approach the Supreme Court against the regulator’s move. The case is scheduled for hearing on July 20. The lack of proper stakeholder consultation and the absence of reasonable grounds to restrict any business are the primary provisions under which the RBI notice is challenged in the SC.
“This RBI response has cemented our case ahead of the hearing in SC. The grounds on which our writ petition has been filed is that the RBI has not done enough research to ban a business completely,” said Rashmi Deshpande, associate partner at Khaitan & Co.
The law firm represents one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court.
Experts say petitioners will likely attempt to use the response to show how the RBI’s decision did not rely on credible or neutral evidence of harm. This may affect the constitutionality of the RBI’s guidance. #casansaar (Source - ET)
“The RBI specifically mentions that it conducted no research or consultation before the implementation of restriction in April. The RBI also responded that no committee was ever formed for analysing the concept of blockchain before the decision,” said Sethi, a lawyer and founder of blockchainlawyer.in.
A mail to RBI seeking comment remained unanswered till press time on Tuesday.
On April 6, the RBI through its notice titled ‘Prohibition on dealing in Virtual Currencies’, mandated banks, e-wallets, and payment gateway providers to withdraw support for cryptocurrency exchanges and other businesses dealing with VCs in India.
Banks in turn forced exchanges and traders to stop using their accounts for trading in VCs. This led them to approach the Supreme Court against the regulator’s move. The case is scheduled for hearing on July 20. The lack of proper stakeholder consultation and the absence of reasonable grounds to restrict any business are the primary provisions under which the RBI notice is challenged in the SC.
“This RBI response has cemented our case ahead of the hearing in SC. The grounds on which our writ petition has been filed is that the RBI has not done enough research to ban a business completely,” said Rashmi Deshpande, associate partner at Khaitan & Co.
The law firm represents one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court.
Experts say petitioners will likely attempt to use the response to show how the RBI’s decision did not rely on credible or neutral evidence of harm. This may affect the constitutionality of the RBI’s guidance. #casansaar (Source - ET)
Category : RBI | Comments : 0 | Hits : 568
Get Free Daily Updates Via e-Mail on Income Tax, Service tax, Excise and Corporate law
Search News
News By Categories More Categories
- Income Tax Dept serves notices to salaried individuals for documentary proof to claim exemptions
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 - Update on allotment of Branches
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 - Update on Allotment of Branches
- Police Atrocities towards CA in Faridabad - Its Time to be Unite
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates 2019
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2022 Updates
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- NFRA Imposes Monetary penalty of Rs 1 Crore on M/s Dhiraj & Dheeraj
- ICAI notifies earlier announced CA exam dates despite pending legal challenge before SC
- NFRA debars Auditors, imposes Rs 50 lakh penalties for lapses in Brightcom, CMIL cases
- GST Important Update - Enhancement in the GST Portal
- NFRA Slaps Rs 5 lakh Penalty on Audit Firm for lapses in Vikas WSP Audit Case
- CBDT extends due date for filing Form 10A/10AB upto 30th June, 2024
- RBI comes out with FEMA regulations for direct listing on international exchange
- RBI directs payment firms to track high-value, fishy transactions during elections
- NCLT orders insolvency proceedings against Subhash Chandra
- Income Tax dept starts drive to dispose of appeals, 0.54 million at last count
- Payment of MCA fees –electronic mode-regarding
- Budget '11-12' Parliament Completes Approval Exercise
- Satyam restrained from operating its accounts
- ICICI a foreign firm, subject to FDI norms: Govt
- Maha expects Rs 15 crore entertainment tax revenue from IPL
- CAG blames PMO for not acting against Kalmadi
- No service tax on visa facilitators: CBEC
- Provision of 15-minutes reading and planning time allowance to the candidates of Chartered Accountants Examinations
- Companies Bill to be taken up in Monsoon Session
- File Service Tax Return in time as Maximum Penalty increased 10 times to Rs. 20000

Comments