N was a senior official of Xeta Limited, a listed Company. He was convicted for involvement in insider trading and manipulation of share price of the Company. The adjudicating officer levied penalty as provided in the Se

The present case is similar to the case of PVP Global Ventures Pvt Ltd. v. SEBI [SAT] Appeal No. 451 of 2018 [Decided on 12/04/2019] . In this case the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) observed that the object and intention of inserting Section 28A to the SEBI Act, 1992 was to provide a mechanism for recovery of the amount due to SEBI. Instead of prescribing an independent mechanism for collection and recovery of the amounts due to SEBI, the legislature deemed it fit to follow the mechanism provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly inserted Section 28A to SEBI Act wherein the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to collection and recovery have been incorporated. Thus, the legislature by inserting Section 28A to SEBI Act, 1992 has provided that if a person fails to pay the amounts referred in Section 28A, then the Recovery Officer shall draw up a statement/certificate and proceed to recover the amounts specified in the certificate by any one or more of the five modes specified therein. This Tribunal in Dushyant N. Dalal & Anr. v. SEBI decided on March 10, 2017 (Appeal No. 41 of 2014) in which judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1188 , after considering the provision of Section 28A of SEBI Act, 1992 read with Section 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the liability to pay interest under Section 28A read with Section 220 is automatic and arises by operation of law. From the aforesaid, it becomes clear that interest was not only chargeable under Section 28A read with Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but the provisions of the Interest Act, 1978 could also be taken into consideration and interest could be charged from the date on which the penalty became due. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the Recovery Officer was justified in charging interest from the date of the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer. Hence, N's argument is not tenable.