Jurisdiction and permanent residence findings upheld where the applicable notification governed the transfers and no writ error was shown.

A jurisdictional challenge based on the 1958 notification failed because the impugned show-cause notice concerned transfers made in 1974-75, when the 1958 notification as amended in 1974 was in force; the 1977 notification was therefore irrelevant and no retrospective operation arose. The objection that liability could be avoided because the petitioner was not permanently residing in India also failed, as the authorities had concurrently found as a matter of fact that he had been continuously residing in India since 1973 and was permanently residing there at the relevant time. In the absence of any error of law or jurisdictional infirmity, writ interference was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the impugned action was without jurisdiction because the 1958 notification was inapplicable and the later notification could not operate retrospectively; (ii) whether the petitioner could avoid liability on the ground that he was not a person permanently residing in India.

Issue (i): whether the impugned action was without jurisdiction because the 1958 notification was inapplicable and the later notification could not operate retrospectively.

Analysis: The show-cause notice related to transfers made in 1974-75, when the 1958 notification, as amended in 1974, was in force. The later notification of 1977 did not govern the notice and, therefore, no question arose of giving it retrospective effect. The challenge to jurisdiction on this basis failed.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the impugned action was held to be within jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner could avoid liability on the ground that he was not a person permanently residing in India.

Analysis: The relevant authorities had recorded concurrent findings that the petitioner had been continuously residing in India since 1973 and was permanently residing in India at the relevant time. Such a determination was treated as a finding of fact and did not disclose any error of law warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The finding that the petitioner was permanently residing in India was upheld and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed in entirety, as the challenge to the notification and the challenge based on residence both lacked merit, leaving the penalty order and appellate dismissal undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing notification applicable to the relevant period is amended rather than replaced for the purpose of the impugned transactions, and the question of permanent residence is concurrently found as fact by the authorities below, the writ court will not interfere absent an error of law or jurisdictional infirmity.

---