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 delayed supply of the recorded reasons for issuing notice under section 6(1) vitiated the forfeiture proceedings; (ii) whether forfeiture under the Act amounted to a penalty so as to offend Article 20 of the Constitution of India; and (iii) whether the matter required remand for reconsideration of the forfeiture order on merits.
Issue (i): whether delayed supply of the recorded reasons for issuing notice under section 6(1) vitiated the forfeiture proceedings
Analysis: The notice under section 6(1) was initially issued while the appellant was in preventive detention, and the recorded reasons were supplied later. The appellant thereafter filed a reply, was heard, and the competent authority passed a reasoned order, which was partly modified in appeal. The statutory scheme did not expressly require contemporaneous communication of reasons with the notice, and the delayed supply did not prevent the appellant from effectively meeting the case against him.
Conclusion: The delayed communication of reasons did not vitiate the forfeiture proceedings.
Issue (ii): whether forfeiture under the Act amounted to a penalty so as to offend Article 20 of the Constitution of India
Analysis: The Act applies to identified classes of persons and authorises forfeiture only of property found, after enquiry, to be illegally acquired property. The conviction or detention mentioned in section 2 operates only as a basis for identifying the class of persons against whom proceedings may be initiated. The forfeiture is directed against ill-gotten property, not imposed as punishment for the earlier conviction or detention. In that context, the Court treated the measure as civil forfeiture and held that it did not constitute a penalty within the meaning of Article 20. The statutory inclusion in the Ninth Schedule was also noticed as an additional answer to the constitutional challenge.
Conclusion: Forfeiture under the Act did not violate Article 20 of the Constitution of India.
Issue (iii): whether the matter required remand for reconsideration of the forfeiture order on merits
Analysis: The writ petition had challenged the forfeiture on the two legal grounds considered above, and no independent factual challenge to the finding that the properties were illegally acquired was pleaded. The attempt to seek reappreciation of evidence in appeal went beyond the pleadings, and there was no basis to remit the matter for fresh consideration by the High Court.
Conclusion: Remand was not warranted.
Final Conclusion: The constitutional and procedural objections to the forfeiture failed, and the order sustaining forfeiture was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute does not require contemporaneous communication of reasons, delayed supply after issuance of notice will not invalidate forfeiture proceedings if the noticee is later afforded a real opportunity to respond; and forfeiture of illegally acquired property under a civil recovery scheme is not a penalty for the purpose of Article 20 when it operates against property rather than as punishment for the antecedent conviction or detention.
TaxTMI 
