TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1531
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.S.G. Anjani Kumar Sharan, C.G.C. (In LPA No. 27 of 1997) For the Appellant : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Verma, C.G.C. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) All these three cases are inter-linked and they arise out of a proceeding for forfeiture of property under the provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "SAFEMA"). 2. We have heard at length the parties. The facts are within a narrow compass. Late Mewalal was a businessman at Patna, had four sons namely, Ram, Lakshman, Bharat Prasad and Shyam Babu. After the death of Mewalal,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act. Apparently, upon assessment being made, this information was then given to the Customs Authorities, by the two brothers Bharat Prasad and Shyam Babu, who had been detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. An internal emergency having been imposed, they were then both detained, put under the preventive detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "COFEPOSA"). 5. They challenged unsuccessfully their preventive detention up to the Apex Court. Their contentions were rejected in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.D.M. Jabalpur Vs. B. Shukla since reported in AIR 1976 SC 1207 = (1976) 2 SCC 521. 6. Now, a notice was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to initiate the proceedings. 9. Several judgments have been cited in support of different Acts including SAFEMA to show what "reason to believe" would be and especially when an act prescribes "reason to believe" to be recorded in writing. 10. In our view, it is not very necessary to hold this question, because, the notice that Bharat Prasad and Shyam Babu have been detained in COFEPOSA for indulging in several schemes, that itself gives them jurisdiction. Further, in the notice under Section 6 of the "SAFEMA" itself, it is noticed that report in terms of Section 6 of the Act, having been received from the Income Tax Authorities, there was "reason to believe" that conditions existed for forfeiture of properties. 11. In our view, it is we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acquisition of property. It is assumed that if a person is detained under the COFEPOSA, then all the properties acquired by him and his relatives as defined under the Act, ipso facto becomes illegally acquired properties. That unfortunately, is not the law as has been held in the case of Aslam Mohammad Merchant (supra). This, in our view, would itself be sufficient to set aside the proceedings. 13. We may also note at this juncture in issue, the detention under COFEPOSA, could not have been challenged in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.D.M. Jabalpur (supra), the fundamental rights including the rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 had been suspended. Therefore, the challenge to the detention under COFEPOSA was not ent....