https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296303 Forfeiture under SAFEMA requires the authority to form a reason to believe, on material from a preliminary inquiry, that the particular properties are illegally acquired; preventive detention under COFEPOSA by itself does not justify forfeiture of all related properties. The notice was unsupported because it relied on detention and Income-tax information without material linking the specific assets to illegal acquisition, so the initiation was invalid. The rejection of the acquisition explanation was also unsustainable, as the record showed prior ownership and transactions predating the restrictive regime and the authority took an unduly technical view. en-us Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:25:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296303 Forfeiture under SAFEMA requires the authority to form a reason to believe, on material from a preliminary inquiry, that the particular properties are illegally acquired; preventive detention under COFEPOSA by itself does not justify forfeiture of all related properties. The notice was unsupported because it relied on detention and Income-tax information without material linking the specific assets to illegal acquisition, so the initiation was invalid. The rejection of the acquisition explanation was also unsustainable, as the record showed prior ownership and transactions predating the restrictive regime and the authority took an unduly technical view. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296303