https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22625 Forfeiture proceedings under the Act turned on whether the property was shown to have a lawful source, and the preamble did not limit the substantive scheme requiring proof of lawful acquisition; the challenge based on alleged smuggling gains failed. Notice was properly issued to the person treated and claiming herself as owner, so service on the husband was not required. The plea of inordinate delay was rejected because the slow progress was linked to non-cooperation and the difficulty of tracing assets. As the forfeiture order was ex parte and evidence had not been effectively placed, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to adduce evidence. en-us Fri, 26 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:50:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22625 Forfeiture proceedings under the Act turned on whether the property was shown to have a lawful source, and the preamble did not limit the substantive scheme requiring proof of lawful acquisition; the challenge based on alleged smuggling gains failed. Notice was properly issued to the person treated and claiming herself as owner, so service on the husband was not required. The plea of inordinate delay was rejected because the slow progress was linked to non-cooperation and the difficulty of tracing assets. As the forfeiture order was ex parte and evidence had not been effectively placed, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to adduce evidence. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 26 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22625