https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430320 Forfeiture under SAFEMA requires the competent authority to first establish the jurisdictional fact of a real nexus between the property and the detenue's illegal earnings. Sections 6 and 7 demand recorded reasons and a finding that the property is illegally acquired; only after that does Section 8 shift the burden to the affected person to disprove illegal acquisition. Mere relationship with the detenue, or failure to explain the source of funds, is insufficient without that connecting link. On the stated facts, the notice and forfeiture order disclosed no such nexus, so the forfeiture proceedings were unsustainable and the writ court's quashing was upheld. en-us Thu, 13 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Nov 2022 21:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430320 Forfeiture under SAFEMA requires the competent authority to first establish the jurisdictional fact of a real nexus between the property and the detenue's illegal earnings. Sections 6 and 7 demand recorded reasons and a finding that the property is illegally acquired; only after that does Section 8 shift the burden to the affected person to disprove illegal acquisition. Mere relationship with the detenue, or failure to explain the source of funds, is insufficient without that connecting link. On the stated facts, the notice and forfeiture order disclosed no such nexus, so the forfeiture proceedings were unsustainable and the writ court's quashing was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430320