<?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>1997 (6) TMI 337 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152003</link>
    <description>Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA requires the Competent Authority to record in writing the reasons for believing, on relevant material, that property is illegally acquired before issuing notice. That recording is a jurisdictional safeguard, not a mere formality, because it permits scrutiny of whether the belief was formed in good faith on germane grounds. Where the record does not contain the recorded reasons, the authority cannot establish the foundation for the proceedings, and the affected person is not yet called upon to rebut the allegations. On those facts, the Tribunal treated the notices as issued without jurisdiction and held that the forfeiture proceedings and orders could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:56:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 337 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152003</link>
      <description>Section 6(1) of the SAFEMA requires the Competent Authority to record in writing the reasons for believing, on relevant material, that property is illegally acquired before issuing notice. That recording is a jurisdictional safeguard, not a mere formality, because it permits scrutiny of whether the belief was formed in good faith on germane grounds. Where the record does not contain the recorded reasons, the authority cannot establish the foundation for the proceedings, and the affected person is not yet called upon to rebut the allegations. On those facts, the Tribunal treated the notices as issued without jurisdiction and held that the forfeiture proceedings and orders could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>