Court allows impleadment petitions, sets aside void orders under Benami Act. Malafide action allegations not considered.

Cascade Energy Pte Ltd. Versus Union of India, Shri. R.V. Aroon Prasaad, IRS, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Chennai, Addl., Commissioner of Income Tax, Addl., Commissioner of Income Tax, (Benami Prohibition), Registrar of Companies, Chennai, M/s. Archer Power Systems Private Ltd., Rohit Rabindranath

Cascade Energy Pte Ltd. Versus Union of India, Shri. R.V. Aroon Prasaad, IRS, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami ... Issues Involved:
1. Impleadment of proposed parties.
2. Jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the impugned orders.
3. Retrospective application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.
4. Allegations of malafide action by the second respondent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Impleadment of Proposed Parties:
The proposed parties, Mr. RR and Archer, sought to be impleaded as respondents in the writ petitions. The court noted that the impugned proceedings resulted from a complaint lodged by Mr. RR, and the petitioner had made several allegations against Mr. RR and Archer, linking them with the second respondent. The court concluded that the proposed parties were proper parties necessary for a complete and final decision of the questions involved. Therefore, the impleadment petitions were allowed, making Mr. RR and Archer respondents 7 and 8 in the writ petitions.

2. Jurisdiction of the Second Respondent:
The petitioner argued that the notification dated 18.05.2017, published in the Gazette of India, came into force on the said date, and only the specified authorities could exercise jurisdiction under the Benami Act. The second respondent, being the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle (I), was not the designated Initiating Officer under the notification. The court examined the legal position and concluded that the notification dated 18.05.2017, having been e-published on 18.05.2017, took effect from that date. Therefore, the second respondent lacked inherent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings on 19.05.2017, making the impugned notice, prohibitory order, and attachment order without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

3. Retrospective Application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016:
The court did not delve into the issue of the retrospective application of the Amendment Act, as the foundation of the second respondent's jurisdiction had already collapsed, rendering the proceedings void.

4. Allegations of Malafide Action by the Second Respondent:
The court did not address the allegations of malafide action by the second respondent, as the proceedings were already held to be void due to the lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders/proceedings were quashed. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.