Provisional attachment orders under Section 24(3) PBPT Act upheld despite procedural challenges by petitioners

The Rajasthan HC dismissed writ petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under Section 24(3) of the PBPT Act. Petitioners argued the Initiating Officer failed to provide materials, personal hearing opportunities, and issued attachment orders before awaiting their response to show cause notices. The court held that the Initiating Officer need not wait for responses before issuing provisional attachment orders, only requiring prior approval from the approving authority, which was obtained. The court found the Officer properly recorded reasons to believe and prima facie opinion regarding benami transactions involving shell company properties funded by another party. The adjudicating authority was deemed the appropriate forum for challenging provisional attachment validity.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Provisional Attachment Orders under PBPT Act.
2. Recording of Reasons by Initiating Officer.
3. Compliance with Document Identification Number (DIN) Requirements.
4. Limitation Period for Passing Orders under Section 24(4) of PBPT Act.
5. Opportunity of Personal Hearing.
6. Definition and Scope of Benami Transactions under PBPT Act.
7. Relevance of Fiduciary Capacity Exception under Section 2(9) of PBPT Act.

Summary:

1. Validity of Provisional Attachment Orders under PBPT Act:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the provisional attachment orders issued under Sections 24(1), (2), and (3) of the PBPT Act, arguing that the orders were issued without waiting for their response, thus violating principles of natural justice. The court held that the Initiating Officer is not required to wait for the response before issuing a provisional attachment order, provided prior approval from the approving authority is obtained. Hence, the argument was rejected.

2. Recording of Reasons by Initiating Officer:
The petitioners contended that the Initiating Officer failed to record reasons for initiating proceedings. The court found that the show cause notice dated 28.04.2023 contained specific reasons to believe, as required under the PBPT Act. Therefore, this argument was also dismissed.

3. Compliance with Document Identification Number (DIN) Requirements:
The petitioners argued that the orders did not contain different DINs as required by a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The court noted that both orders dated 28.07.2023 contained the same DIN and considered them as one document, dismissing this technical objection.

4. Limitation Period for Passing Orders under Section 24(4) of PBPT Act:
The petitioners claimed that the order under Section 24(4) was passed beyond the limitation period. The court found that the orders dated 28.07.2023 were timely and contained the same DIN, thus rejecting this argument.

5. Opportunity of Personal Hearing:
The petitioners argued that they were not provided an opportunity for a personal hearing. The court found that the petitioners were given multiple opportunities for a personal hearing, which they failed to avail. Hence, this contention was dismissed.

6. Definition and Scope of Benami Transactions under PBPT Act:
The petitioners argued that the company could not be considered a Benamidar of its own shareholders. The court held that if a property is purchased in the company's name but not from the company's funds, it could be considered a Benami transaction. The court noted that the petitioner-company was a shell company, and the funds for the property were provided by petitioner No.2, thus fitting the definition of a Benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A) of the PBPT Act.

7. Relevance of Fiduciary Capacity Exception under Section 2(9) of PBPT Act:
The petitioners argued that the fiduciary capacity exception applied, as the director provided funds for the company. The court held that this exception did not apply as the funds were not from the company's capital but from personal income, thus rejecting this argument.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and dismissed all writ petitions and stay petitions, emphasizing that the adjudicating authority is best suited to consider the validity of provisional attachment orders. The judgment in M/s Shri Kalyan Building's case was distinguished based on different factual circumstances.

---