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 the competent authority could pass an ex parte forfeiture order under section 68-I(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 without granting a further personal hearing after the notice under section 68H; (ii) Whether the proceedings under Chapter V-A were validly initiated and the property of the partnership firm was liable to forfeiture on the footing that the affected person's spouse and other family members fell within the statutory category of relatives.
Issue (i): Whether the competent authority could pass an ex parte forfeiture order under section 68-I(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 without granting a further personal hearing after the notice under section 68H.
Analysis: The statutory proviso to section 68-I(1) expressly empowers the competent authority to proceed ex parte where the person affected, or any other person through whom the property is held, does not appear or represent the case within the period specified in the show-cause notice. No reply or explanation was filed within time after service of the notice, and the later letter seeking time did not alter that position. The proviso was held to be effective and not redundant, and the authority was not required to issue a second notice fixing another hearing date before deciding the matter ex parte.
Conclusion: The ex parte forfeiture order was valid and did not suffer from procedural infirmity.
Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings under Chapter V-A were validly initiated and the property of the partnership firm was liable to forfeiture on the footing that the affected person's spouse and other family members fell within the statutory category of relatives.
Analysis: The challenge based on alleged divorce and the term of sentence imposed by the foreign court was rejected as involving factual assertions not pleaded or proved. The Court further held that the statutory trigger is the nature of the foreign offence carrying imprisonment of five years or more, not the actual sentence alone. On the facts recorded by the competent authority, the partnership consisted of the spouse, mother, and sisters of the affected person, and the Act treated such persons as relatives within the defined categories. The firm's property, including the car in question, was therefore liable to forfeiture as illegally acquired property in the absence of any lawful explanation for its acquisition.
Conclusion: The proceedings were valid and the partnership property was liable to forfeiture.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all material grounds, and the forfeiture order under Chapter V-A was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the affected person fails to appear or respond within the time fixed in the show-cause notice, section 68-I(1) permits the competent authority to decide ex parte on the available material; and property held by relatives falling within the statutory definition under Chapter V-A is liable to forfeiture if its acquisition remains unexplained.
TaxTMI 
