TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Mr. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq For the Appellants : Ms. M. Sheela (in all cases) For the Respondent : Mr. R. Sivaraman (in all cases) COMMON JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. Challenging the common order dated 15.12.2022, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, New Delhi, in the appeals filed by the respondent(s) under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (Act No.43 as amended in 2016), the appellants have preferred these civil miscellaneous appeals before this court. 2. Today, when the matters were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for both sides in unison, submitted that a batch of appeals viz., CMA No.1380 of 2023 etc. cases, challenging th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wherein, it was categorically held that 'the provisions under section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retrospectively', allowed the appeals filed by the respondent(s) herein by setting aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the action of initiating officer in reference to the alleged benami transaction of a period prior to the Amendment Act of 2016. For better appreciation, the operative portion of the said decision of the Honourable Supreme Court is extracted below: "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, Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an independent right to initiate the action taking the Amendment Act, 2016 to be prospective and does not offend the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UOI v/s M/s.Ganpati Dealcom (supra) then this order would not come in their way as otherwise action can be governed by para 130(f) of the judgment (supra)." 8. Recently, the issue involved herein came up for consideration before the Telengana High Court in Nutrient Marine Foods Ltd. vs. Adjudicating Authority, Chennai [(2023) 152 taxmann.com 86 (Telengana)] and it was observed as follows: "It is submitted that the present writ petitions are covered by the common judgment delivered in Neopride Pharmaceuticals Ltd., vs. Adjuidcating Authority (W.P. No. 33191 of 2022, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nutrient Marine Foods Limited [(2023) 152 taxmann.com 87 (SC)] has dismissed the same, in the following terms: "1. The issues raised in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom (P) Ltd., (2022) (4) taxmann.com 389/289 Taxman 177/447 ITR 108/2022 SCC Online SC 1064. Learned counsel for the petitioner (s) contend that review of the said judgment is pending. 2. Since as of now the issue stands covered by the judgment in the case of Ganapati Dealcom (supra) we dismiss this special leave petition for the same reasons and ground. 3. Delay, if any, is condoned. 4. However, liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) wherein, it was held as follows: "35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case ma....