2023 (8) TMI 1598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....') as amended by the Act of 2016. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Initiating Officer of the Benami Prohibition Unit (BPU) had initiated the proceedings after applying the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (in short 'Amendment Act 2016'). The alleged benami transaction involved in this case is of the period prior to amendment. The issue of the application of the Amendment Act of 2016 in regard to the Benami Transaction prior to the amendment was an issue before the Apex Court and has been decided in the case of "Union of India &Anr. v/s M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd." reported in SCC Online SC 1064. It was also the constitutional validities of certain provisions. The Section 3(2) of unamended Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w petition before this Tribunal. It is further submitted that independent to the action involved in this case, if the Department has a right to initiate proceedings after taking Amendment Act of 2016 to be prospective, liberty for it be given. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. A challenge to the order of the Adjudicating Authority has been made by way of this appeal mainly with reference to the judgment of the Apex Courtin the case of "Union of India & Anr. v/s M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd." (supra). On perusal of the order of the Adjudicating Authority and the notice of the Initiating Officer, it is case of alleged benami transaction prior to the date of coming into force of the Amendment ....