https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254012 Under SAFEMA, a writ petition challenging only a show cause notice was not maintainable where the statute provided a complete adjudicatory and appellate machinery, and no clear jurisdictional error, fundamental-rights breach, or natural justice violation was shown. The Court held that Article 226 relief at the notice stage was unwarranted and that the parties should pursue the statutory remedy. It further held that SAFEMA contains no limitation period for issuing notice, so delay alone did not invalidate the fresh Section 6(1) notices, and prior COFEPOSA detention proceedings did not bar SAFEMA action. On the material recorded, the authority had reasons to believe the properties were illegally acquired, so the notices were upheld. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:25:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254012 Under SAFEMA, a writ petition challenging only a show cause notice was not maintainable where the statute provided a complete adjudicatory and appellate machinery, and no clear jurisdictional error, fundamental-rights breach, or natural justice violation was shown. The Court held that Article 226 relief at the notice stage was unwarranted and that the parties should pursue the statutory remedy. It further held that SAFEMA contains no limitation period for issuing notice, so delay alone did not invalidate the fresh Section 6(1) notices, and prior COFEPOSA detention proceedings did not bar SAFEMA action. On the material recorded, the authority had reasons to believe the properties were illegally acquired, so the notices were upheld. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 15 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254012