<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (5) TMI 578 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151996</link>
    <description>Preventive detention laws are to be strictly construed where they affect personal or property rights. Where the appropriate Government does not obtain the Advisory Board&#039;s opinion and does not take the statutory step of confirming or revoking detention, the detention is treated as having terminated or revoked by operation of law. Read with the exclusionary proviso to the forfeiture statute, such automatic revocation falls within the category of revocation that excludes the detained person from the Act&#039;s reach. On that basis, the forfeiture proceedings could not be sustained and the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to forfeit the properties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:29:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169034" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 578 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151996</link>
      <description>Preventive detention laws are to be strictly construed where they affect personal or property rights. Where the appropriate Government does not obtain the Advisory Board&#039;s opinion and does not take the statutory step of confirming or revoking detention, the detention is treated as having terminated or revoked by operation of law. Read with the exclusionary proviso to the forfeiture statute, such automatic revocation falls within the category of revocation that excludes the detained person from the Act&#039;s reach. On that basis, the forfeiture proceedings could not be sustained and the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to forfeit the properties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>