https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353832 Forfeiture under SAFEMA requires a demonstrable nexus between the detenue's illegal earnings and the property sought to be seized. Where the competent authority failed to show even prima facie that the properties standing in the respondent's name belonged to the detenue or were acquired from his funds, and the assets were instead supported by registered sale deeds, account records, and tax returns showing independent acquisition, the show-cause notice and forfeiture proceedings were invalid. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, no perversity, illegality, or irregularity was found in the appellate authority's reasoning, and the quashing of the proceedings was upheld. en-us Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:51:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353832 Forfeiture under SAFEMA requires a demonstrable nexus between the detenue's illegal earnings and the property sought to be seized. Where the competent authority failed to show even prima facie that the properties standing in the respondent's name belonged to the detenue or were acquired from his funds, and the assets were instead supported by registered sale deeds, account records, and tax returns showing independent acquisition, the show-cause notice and forfeiture proceedings were invalid. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, no perversity, illegality, or irregularity was found in the appellate authority's reasoning, and the quashing of the proceedings was upheld. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 09 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353832