https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47909 Forfeiture under SAFEMA required the competent authority to have recorded reasons to believe, in writing, that the property was illegally acquired, and strict compliance with that statutory condition was essential because confiscation is a stringent measure. The recorded reasons had to be produced before the Court, either by annexure or in the counter-affidavit, so their relevance could be examined. The notice itself also had to disclose a nexus between the property and the alleged illegal funds. As neither the reasons nor a sufficient link was shown, the notice and consequential forfeiture order were held invalid and unsustainable. en-us Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47909 Forfeiture under SAFEMA required the competent authority to have recorded reasons to believe, in writing, that the property was illegally acquired, and strict compliance with that statutory condition was essential because confiscation is a stringent measure. The recorded reasons had to be produced before the Court, either by annexure or in the counter-affidavit, so their relevance could be examined. The notice itself also had to disclose a nexus between the property and the alleged illegal funds. As neither the reasons nor a sufficient link was shown, the notice and consequential forfeiture order were held invalid and unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47909