https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22860 Non-supply of the recorded reasons to believe with a section 6(1) notice did not by itself vitiate forfeiture proceedings; the affected person had to show actual prejudice, and participation without demonstrated prejudice was insufficient. The legality of the original detention order could not be reopened in forfeiture proceedings to deny affected-person status, because the detention had not been revoked or set aside and the Tribunal lacked competence to invalidate it. Forfeiture also failed where the competent authority did not establish that the acquisitions and bank balance were unlawfully derived, and no finding could be made on the truck in the absence of forfeiture and foundational facts. en-us Thu, 22 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:05:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22860 Non-supply of the recorded reasons to believe with a section 6(1) notice did not by itself vitiate forfeiture proceedings; the affected person had to show actual prejudice, and participation without demonstrated prejudice was insufficient. The legality of the original detention order could not be reopened in forfeiture proceedings to deny affected-person status, because the detention had not been revoked or set aside and the Tribunal lacked competence to invalidate it. Forfeiture also failed where the competent authority did not establish that the acquisitions and bank balance were unlawfully derived, and no finding could be made on the truck in the absence of forfeiture and foundational facts. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 22 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22860