TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1098
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned show cause notice dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure P/11) and Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure P/12). Shri Mishra, learned senior counsel by referring to the amendment application urged that during the pendency of this case, the respondents have passed a consequential order under Section 24(5) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions, 1988 (Act of 1988). Shri Mishra urged that as per Section 24 of the Act of 1988, the Initiating Authority must have reasons to believe that on the basis of material in his possession any person is a Benamidar in respect of a property. In order to satisfy himself, he has to independently, impartially and objectively....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of those properties shows that the same were purchased before amendment had taken place in the said act in the year 2016. Thus, the amended provision cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. Sounding a contra note, Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned notice/orders. He submits that the petitioners have not filed reply on merits despite getting opportunity and relevant documents. Reliance is placed on letter dated 01.02.2019 (Annexure P/14) whereby the petitioner was informed that the relevant documents have been supplied. If the petitioner still intends to get certain documents, he may approach the authorities and he shall be permitted to inspect the relevant documents and even may be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court." (Emphasis supplied) This Court in Kailash Assudani (supra) considered the scheme ingrained in Section 24 and 26 of the Act of 1988. The relevant portion reads as under:- "The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd revoking the attachment order; or (ii) holding the property to be a benami property and confirming the attachment order, in all other cases. " A plain reading of Sub-section (3) makes it clear that the adjudicating authority is obliged to examine the stand of alleged Benamindar in reply to the show cause notice. He is further obliged to make further inquiry or take into account further report or evidence which he deems fit for deciding the question. He can take into account all relevant documents. After providing due opportunity of hearing to alleged Benamindar, he may pass the order to declare the property as Benami Property and confirm the attachment order or he may hold that the property cannot be treated as Benami Property . In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter. In the said case ,neither show cause notice was given nor reasons were assigned in the impugned compulsory purchase order. In the present case show cause notice has been issued, opportunity has been given to the petitioner. The order impugned is provisional/tentative in nature. It is subject to judicial review by adjudicating authority. If order of adjudicating authority goes against the petitioner, the further forums of judicial review of said order is available to the petitioner before the appellate tribunal and then before this Court. Hence,against the tentative/provisional order, no interference is warranted by this court at this stage. As per the scheme of the Act, the petitioner can raise all possible grounds before ....