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 forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA could validly rest on the second detention order under COFEPOSA which had attained finality; (ii) whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proving that the properties and bank balances were acquired from lawful sources and whether any ground existed for interference under Article 226.
Issue (i): whether the forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA could validly rest on the second detention order under COFEPOSA which had attained finality.
Analysis: The second detention order under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act had been unsuccessfully challenged and had become final. The forfeiture notice and the consequential order under SAFEMA were issued on the basis of that operative detention order. Once the detention order survived, the foundation for proceedings under SAFEMA could not be assailed merely because an earlier forfeiture order had been set aside on a different footing. The legal position applied was that a valid and subsisting detention order can furnish the basis for forfeiture action under SAFEMA.
Conclusion: The forfeiture proceedings were validly founded on the final detention order and the challenge on this ground failed.
Issue (ii): whether the petitioner discharged the burden of proving that the properties and bank balances were acquired from lawful sources and whether any ground existed for interference under Article 226.
Analysis: Under SAFEMA, the person affected bears the initial burden of showing lawful sources for the acquisition of the properties. The materials produced were found insufficient to explain the sources of funds, and the factual findings of the Competent Authority and the Appellate Tribunal were not shown to be perverse or unsupported by relevant material. In writ jurisdiction, the Court would not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own factual assessment for concurrent findings reached on the record.
Conclusion: The petitioner did not discharge the burden of proof and no case for judicial interference was made out.
Final Conclusion: The impugned forfeiture orders were sustained and the writ petition, along with the pending applications, stood rejected on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a detention order under COFEPOSA has attained finality, it can validly support forfeiture proceedings under SAFEMA, and the affected person must affirmatively prove lawful acquisition of the property; the writ court will not re-evaluate concurrent factual findings absent perversity.
TaxTMI 
