https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428461 The High Court set aside an order under Section 26(3) of the Benami Property Act, 1988, due to the Act's unconstitutional nature. The court ruled that the provisions lacked safeguards and were overly broad. It was clarified that criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings cannot be initiated for transactions predating the 2016 Amendment Act. The court held that the in rem forfeiture provision of the Amendment Act was punitive and could only apply prospectively. Consequently, all such proceedings for transactions before 25.10.2016 were quashed, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision. en-us Tue, 20 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Oct 2022 09:28:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428461 The High Court set aside an order under Section 26(3) of the Benami Property Act, 1988, due to the Act's unconstitutional nature. The court ruled that the provisions lacked safeguards and were overly broad. It was clarified that criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings cannot be initiated for transactions predating the 2016 Amendment Act. The court held that the in rem forfeiture provision of the Amendment Act was punitive and could only apply prospectively. Consequently, all such proceedings for transactions before 25.10.2016 were quashed, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision. Case-Laws Benami Property Tue, 20 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428461