https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256124 A COFEPOSA detention order made during the Emergency under Section 12A fell within the third proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA because it operated only for the Emergency period and stood revoked when the Emergency ended. That statutory position excluded the person from SAFEMA's reach, so forfeiture proceedings could not be sustained. The fact that the revocation order referred to Section 11(1) instead of Section 12A did not change the result, and non-service of the detention order further meant there was no effective opportunity to challenge it during its subsistence. SAFEMA jurisdiction was therefore lacking. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256124 A COFEPOSA detention order made during the Emergency under Section 12A fell within the third proviso to Section 2(2)(b) of SAFEMA because it operated only for the Emergency period and stood revoked when the Emergency ended. That statutory position excluded the person from SAFEMA's reach, so forfeiture proceedings could not be sustained. The fact that the revocation order referred to Section 11(1) instead of Section 12A did not change the result, and non-service of the detention order further meant there was no effective opportunity to challenge it during its subsistence. SAFEMA jurisdiction was therefore lacking. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 01 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256124