<?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>2019 (12) TMI 1098 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390215</link>
    <description>Show cause notice and provisional attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act were treated as tentative steps within the statutory scheme, so writ interference at the notice stage was limited to cases of clear lack of jurisdiction. The matter had to proceed before the Adjudicating Authority, which was required to consider the reply, make inquiries, examine relevant material, and decide whether the property was benami and whether attachment should be confirmed or revoked. The writ petitions were not entertained because the statutory adjudicatory process had not run its course and disputed factual issues were better left to that forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Dec 2019 17:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=598467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 1098 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390215</link>
      <description>Show cause notice and provisional attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act were treated as tentative steps within the statutory scheme, so writ interference at the notice stage was limited to cases of clear lack of jurisdiction. The matter had to proceed before the Adjudicating Authority, which was required to consider the reply, make inquiries, examine relevant material, and decide whether the property was benami and whether attachment should be confirmed or revoked. The writ petitions were not entertained because the statutory adjudicatory process had not run its course and disputed factual issues were better left to that forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>