TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether subsequent detention orders furnished jurisdiction to proceed against the appellant notwithstanding the earlier detention order having been quashed and the earlier forfeiture order not having been enforced; (ii) whether under section 7(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, the Competent Authority was bound to afford a hearing before making a final order of forfeiture even when no reply was filed to the show-cause notice.
Issue (i): whether subsequent detention orders furnished jurisdiction to proceed against the appellant notwithstanding the earlier detention order having been quashed and the earlier forfeiture order not having been enforced.
Analysis: The proceeding was founded on later detention orders which had neither been revoked nor set aside. Those orders supplied the statutory basis for proceeding against the appellant as a relative of the detenu under the Act. The quashing of the earlier detention order did not denude the Competent Authority of jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceedings on the strength of the later detention orders.
Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction failed and was rejected against the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether under section 7(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, the Competent Authority was bound to afford a hearing before making a final order of forfeiture even when no reply was filed to the show-cause notice.
Analysis: Section 7(1) expressly requires the Competent Authority, after considering the explanation, if any, and the materials available, to give the person affected a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The expression "if any" indicates that the duty to grant a hearing does not depend on a reply being filed. Since no hearing notice was issued before the impugned forfeiture order, the order suffered from a legal infirmity. The matter was therefore fit to be remitted for fresh decision after hearing the appellant and considering any material relied upon.
Conclusion: The failure to grant a hearing vitiated the order and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Final Conclusion: The forfeiture order was set aside and the matter was sent back to the Competent Authority to pass a fresh independent order after affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing and considering the relevant material.
Ratio Decidendi: Under section 7(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, a reasonable opportunity of being heard is mandatory before a final forfeiture order can be passed, even where no explanation is filed to the show-cause notice.
TaxTMI 
