https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426808 SC held that the 2016 amendments to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act are substantive and cannot operate retrospectively. It declared Section 3(2) of both the 1988 Act and the 2016 Act unconstitutional, and held the in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended 1988 Act to be manifestly arbitrary. SC further ruled that Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive, applies only prospectively from 25.10.2016. Authorities are barred from initiating or continuing criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings in respect of benami transactions prior to that date, and all such existing proceedings stand quashed. Other constitutional challenges were left open. en-us Tue, 23 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 May 2026 12:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426808 SC held that the 2016 amendments to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act are substantive and cannot operate retrospectively. It declared Section 3(2) of both the 1988 Act and the 2016 Act unconstitutional, and held the in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended 1988 Act to be manifestly arbitrary. SC further ruled that Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive, applies only prospectively from 25.10.2016. Authorities are barred from initiating or continuing criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings in respect of benami transactions prior to that date, and all such existing proceedings stand quashed. Other constitutional challenges were left open. Case-Laws Benami Property Tue, 23 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426808