TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 against the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by Adjudicating Authority in Reference Number R-974/2018. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, relying on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Union of India & Anr. Versus M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5783/2022 dated 23.08.2022" reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1064, the appellant filed an application seeking following reliefs: a) Quash the Impugned Order dated 13.08.2019 passed u/s 26(3) by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority. b) Quash the Provisional Attachment Order dated 23.07.2018 passed u/s 24(4)(a)(i) of the PBPT Act, 1988. c) Direct the immediate release of the Subject Properties from illegal attachment. d) Pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the issues involved in the appeal are squarely covered by the above said judgment, and hence the present Appeal deserves to be allowed in limine, primarily on the ground that the impugned transactions of the appellant are prior to 25.10.2016. That the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (Amended in 2016) cannot have retrospective effect/application, and that cannot be subjected to the manifestly arbitrary and overly oppressive provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, which has been held to be violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution and hence unconstitutional and the proceedings thereunder as per incuriam in view of the aforesaid judgment. 4. In response to above, the respondent in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 228 at Kufrijunga Shimla 15,00,000 05.11.2009 Sandeep Sethi Khata Khatoni No. 65min/ 110min, khasra No. 229, 494 at Kufrijunga, Shimla 41,00,000 (e) During the enquiries, Sandeep Sethi was not able to provide cogent documentary evidences for source of funds for payments made for purchase of properties. After conducting enquiries and substantial material available on record, it is apparent that the money have routed to the Account of Sh. Ashok Sethi through Unknown sources. Therefore, it is not traceable as to who actually provided the consideration for the transactions. (f) After considering the facts, a show cause notice U/s 24(1) of PBPT Act, 1988 was issued on 25.04.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....current legal position, the BPU-2 reserves the right take legal recourse. (k) In this scenario, the office of the Initiating Officer requests the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to proceed accordingly. 5. Heard both side, considered their submissions made orally. Perused the application and the response thereto, also gone through the papers available on record. The short question to be considered herein is that whether the alleged Benami transactions, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, are entered into prior to 25.10.2016, and, if it is so, whether the provisions of the PBPT Act, 1988 as amended in 2016, can be applied retrospectively. There is no difference in the contentions of both the parties that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions. e) Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution of confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016, viz., 25.10.2016. As a consequence of the above declaration all such prosecutions for confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed. f) As this Court is not concerned with the constitutionality of such independent forfeiture proceedings contemplated under the 2016 Amendment Act on the other grounds, the aforesaid questions are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings." 8. Neither in their response nor during the course of hearing, the respondent has deni....