TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g for respondents No.2 and 3. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the provisional order of attachment dated 27.12.2021 made by respondent No.2. 3. It may be mentioned that respondent No.2 in exercise of powers under Section 24(4)(b)(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (briefly, 'the Benami Property Act' hereinafter) had passed the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 provisionally attaching the property listed in the said order i.e., immovable property being agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in survey No.102/A/1 situated at Bacharam Village, Hayatnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have pointed out that the transaction vis-à-vis alleged benami property....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 are prospective in nature because these two provisions have significantly and substantially widened the definition of 'benami transaction' than as was there in the unamended Benami Property Act of 1988. 8. Taking note of the fact that Central Government had notified the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016 as 01.11.2016, this Court held that these two provisions cannot be applied to a transaction which took place prior to 01.11.2016. In that case, the transaction was dated 14.12.2011. Therefore, the show cause notice, provisional attachment order as well as the adjudicating order were declared null and void being without jurisdiction and consequently, quashed. 9. In Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which went to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken by the Union as to the validity of these provisions in the present litigation. Such assumption cannot be made when this Court is called upon to answer whether the impugned provisions are attracted to those transactions that have taken place before 2016. 10. After elaborate deliberation, Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Section 3 (criminal provision), Section 2(a) (definition clause) and Section 5 (confiscation proceedings) of the Benami Property Act are overly broad, disproportionately harsh and without adequate safeguards. Though such provisions were in a dormant condition, nonetheless, Supreme Court declared Sections 3 and 5 of the Benami Property Act as unconstitutional from inception. It has been held as follows: From....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clarified that as it has held that criminal provisions under the Benami Property Act were arbitrary and incapable of application, the law through the 2016 amendment could not retroactively apply to confiscation of those transactions entered into between 05.09.1988 to 25.10.2016 as the same would amount to punitive punishment. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded as under: In view of the above discussion, we hold as under: a) Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. b) In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to ....