Court directs petitioner to present objections to adjudicating authority regarding 2017 attachment notice for fair review. The court refrained from examining the legality of the notice of attachment issued in 2017, directing the petitioner to present objections before the ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court directs petitioner to present objections to adjudicating authority regarding 2017 attachment notice for fair review.
The court refrained from examining the legality of the notice of attachment issued in 2017, directing the petitioner to present objections before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority was instructed to allow sufficient time for written objections, ensuring a fair opportunity for all parties. The court disposed of the writ petition with these observations, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination by the adjudicating authority in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
Issues: Challenge to notice of attachment and order passed by the approving authority under the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
Analysis: The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the notice of attachment and the order passed by the approving authority dated 22/12/2017. The grounds raised included non-compliance with principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, specifically Section 24 regarding service of notice and application of mind to the order of approval. The respondent-caveator for Revenue informed the court that the matter was pending before the adjudicating authority, where the Benamidar had already submitted objections, and the petitioner, as a beneficiary, could also raise objections. The adjudicating authority was scheduled to consider the matter shortly.
The court refrained from examining the legality of the notice of attachment issued in 2017, as the matter was already before the adjudicating authority. The court directed the petitioner to present all objections before the adjudicating authority, which would then decide and examine the objections and issue a reasoned order. The adjudicating authority was instructed to provide the petitioner with sufficient time to submit objections in writing and to thoroughly examine the issue, ensuring a fair opportunity for all parties involved. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
