TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes SAFEMA forfeiture order, stresses notice and hearing requirements</h1> <h3>KAMLA BAI Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> KAMLA BAI Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 98 (Del.) Issues:1. Quashing of order under SAFEMA sought for property forfeiture.2. Whether property can be forfeited without notice and hearing under SAFEMA.Analysis:1. The judgment concerns the quashing of an order passed by the Competent Authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) for forfeiting a property in Rajasthan. The property belonged to the petitioner, the wife of a person covered under SAFEMA. The order was based on the alleged illegal acquisition of properties by the petitioner's husband. However, the property was in the petitioner's name, as confirmed by the Sale Deed, and not her husband's. The petitioner challenged the forfeiture order, questioning the lack of notice and hearing under SAFEMA.2. The key issue in this case revolves around whether the property can be forfeited without following the due process of issuing a notice under Section 6(2) and providing an opportunity of hearing under Section 7(1) of SAFEMA. The Competent Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner's husband but failed to serve a notice to the petitioner, who owned the property in question. The judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of SAFEMA, which require notice to both the person affected and any other person holding the property on their behalf. The court highlighted the significance of natural justice principles, citing a Supreme Court ruling to emphasize the mandatory nature of providing an opportunity to be heard when conferred by statute.3. The court held that the failure to issue a notice to the petitioner and provide an opportunity of hearing before forfeiting the property violated the statutory requirements of SAFEMA. The judgment stressed that even if the petitioner was the wife of the person covered under SAFEMA, the mandatory provisions of notice and hearing must be adhered to, especially when they involve principles of natural justice. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision to underscore that when a statute confers a right to be heard, that right cannot be negated, emphasizing the mandatory nature of compliance with such provisions. Consequently, the court quashed the order of forfeiture and directed the property to be released back to the petitioner, ruling in favor of the petitioner in the writ petition.
TaxTMI 