Forfeiture proceedings and lawful source of income: Gujarat HC upheld notice continuity, rejected delay challenge, and sustained forfeiture.

A challenge to forfeiture proceedings failed where a fresh show cause notice was treated as a continuation of an earlier notice that had been stayed during prior proceedings, so no inordinate delay vitiated the action. The High Court also held that the petitioner did not prove that the properties were acquired from a lawful source of income, as the claimed salary, agricultural income, fishing income, and voluntary disclosure lacked reliable documentary support. In writ jurisdiction, the Court declined to reappreciate evidence in the face of concurrent findings by the competent authority and appellate authority, and sustained the forfeiture order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second show cause notice and the consequential forfeiture proceedings were vitiated by delay or were independent of the earlier notice. (ii) Whether the petitioner had established that the properties were acquired from a lawful source of income so as to invalidate the forfeiture order.

Issue (i): Whether the second show cause notice and the consequential forfeiture proceedings were vitiated by delay or were independent of the earlier notice.

Analysis: The earlier notice had remained stayed during the pendency of prior proceedings, and once the stay was lifted the authority issued the fresh notice. The subsequent notice was treated as a continuation of the earlier action, and the absence of an express reference to the first notice did not make the proceedings illegal. In these circumstances, no inordinate delay was found in initiating or continuing the proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge based on delay failed, and the proceedings were held to be valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner had established that the properties were acquired from a lawful source of income so as to invalidate the forfeiture order.

Analysis: The petitioner relied on alleged salary, agricultural income, fishing income, and a voluntary disclosure made before the Income-tax Department. The authorities found that no reliable documentary proof was produced to substantiate the claimed salary or other earnings, and the voluntary disclosure was not accepted as proof of lawful acquisition. The High Court also declined to reappreciate the evidence in writ jurisdiction in the face of concurrent findings of fact by the competent authority and the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to prove a licit source of income, and the forfeiture order was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected because neither the alleged delay in issuing the notice nor the claim of lawful acquisition of property was established.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, concurrent findings of fact on forfeiture and source of income will not be disturbed unless a patent error is shown, and a voluntary disclosure by itself does not prove lawful acquisition of the property.

---