https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195663 A final COFEPOSA detention order could validly sustain SAFEMA forfeiture proceedings, and the prior setting aside of an earlier forfeiture order on a different footing did not undermine that foundation. Under SAFEMA, the affected person bore the burden of proving lawful acquisition of the properties and bank balances, but the materials produced were found insufficient. The concurrent factual findings of the Competent Authority and Appellate Tribunal were not shown to be perverse, and the HC declined to reappreciate evidence in writ jurisdiction. The forfeiture orders were therefore sustained and the writ petition failed on merits. en-us Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2017 14:38:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195663 A final COFEPOSA detention order could validly sustain SAFEMA forfeiture proceedings, and the prior setting aside of an earlier forfeiture order on a different footing did not undermine that foundation. Under SAFEMA, the affected person bore the burden of proving lawful acquisition of the properties and bank balances, but the materials produced were found insufficient. The concurrent factual findings of the Competent Authority and Appellate Tribunal were not shown to be perverse, and the HC declined to reappreciate evidence in writ jurisdiction. The forfeiture orders were therefore sustained and the writ petition failed on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195663