https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756962 Under SAFEMA, proceedings for forfeiture were independent of any parallel TADA proceedings concerning the same properties, so those proceedings did not bar or nullify the SAFEMA inquiry. The competent authority was required only to record a reason to believe that the property was illegally acquired; it was not required, before issuing notice under Section 6, to first prove a nexus between the detenue's income and the properties. The burden then shifted to the person affected to disprove illegality, and no breach of natural justice was established on the facts, so the forfeiture was upheld. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:44:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756962 Under SAFEMA, proceedings for forfeiture were independent of any parallel TADA proceedings concerning the same properties, so those proceedings did not bar or nullify the SAFEMA inquiry. The competent authority was required only to record a reason to believe that the property was illegally acquired; it was not required, before issuing notice under Section 6, to first prove a nexus between the detenue's income and the properties. The burden then shifted to the person affected to disprove illegality, and no breach of natural justice was established on the facts, so the forfeiture was upheld. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 24 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756962