TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of "Union of India & Anr. Versus M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.", 2022 SCC online SC 1064. It is vide the order dated 18.10.2024. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that the issue decided by the Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd was applied by the Adjudicating Authority to deny confirmation of the attachment and even to accept the reference. It was in view of the fact that amendment in the Act of 1988 vide Amending Act of 2016 has been held to be prospective in application. 3. Based on the judgement aforesaid, impugned order was passed. Though it is a fact that appellant Sanju Devi had earlier approached Rajasthan High Court by maintaining a writ petition which was decided in the light of the Judgement in the case of Niharika Jain Versus Union of India reported in 2019 SCC Online Raj-1640. The Union of India preferred an appeal before the Division Bench against the Judgement in the case of appellant Sanju Devi. However, the appeal was disposed of vide dated 31.08.2022 in terms of the Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Since the Judgement in the case of Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. has been recalled by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Jain (supra) makes it clear that the amended provision would not have retrospective application. The appellant would not be governed by the amended provision and thereby the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority may not be interfered. The prayer was made to dismiss the appeal. 7. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. The case in hand has a checkered history not in terms of the facts but litigation at the instance of those who were affected by the notices issued by the respondents under section 23 of the Act of 1988 alleging a case of benami transaction. 8. A challenge to the notice was made even by the appellant. It is by maintaining a writ petition which was decided in terms of the Judgement of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Niharika Jain (Supra). 9. It would be relevant to refer the operative para of the judgement in the case of Niharika Jain (Supra) and accordingly para 94 of the judgement is quoted hereunder:- 94. It is made clear that this Court has neither examined nor commented upon merits of the writ applications but has considered only the larger question of retrospective applicability of the Benami Ame....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n & Ors. in SBCWP No. 2915 of 2019 dated 12.07.2019, all of which have been discussed in detail in the previous paras of this Order, the provisions of Benami Amendment Act, 2016 amending the PBPT Act, 1988 w.e.f. 1" November, 2016 are not applicable retrospectively and thus not applicable to transactions in the instant cases, which have happened much prior to 1" November, 2016. In the instant cases, the IO has held the transactions of purchase of immovable properties mentioned in Table at Para 2.4 of this Order as Benami Transactions u/s. 2(8) of the amended PBPT Act, Smt. Sanju Devi (D-1) as Benamidar u/s. 2(10) of the amended PBPT Act, 1988 and M/s Hazelnut Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (D-2) as Beneficial Owner u/s. 2(12) of the amended PBPT Act. As the impugned transactions are all prior to 1st November, 2016, the provisions of Section 2(8), 2(9), 2(10) & 2(12) of the amended PBPT Act, 1988 applied by the Initiating Officer, cannot be applied in the instant cases, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of D-1 and D-2 in SBCWP No. 11744/2019 & SBCWP No. 13166/2019 dated 23.09.2019 read with decision in Niharika Jain & Ors. in SBCWP No. 2915/2019 dated 12.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt of Rajasthan in cases of Smt. Sanju Devi (D-1) and M.s Hazelnut Construction Pvt. Ltd. (D-2) in SBCWP Nos. 11744/2019 & 13166/2019 dated 23.09.2019 read with decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Niharika Jain & Ors. in SBCWP No. 2915/2019, hereby not confirm the aforesaid Sixty four Provisional Attachment Orders passed u/s. 24(4)(a)(i) dated 23.03.2021 to 26.03.2021 by the IO. The References Nos. R-0031/PBPT/DLI/2021 to R-0046/PBPT/DLI/2021 & R-0050/PBPT/DLI/2021 to R-0097/PBPT/DLI/2021 are thereby not allowed. The ibid decision is subject to the decisions of the Division Bench of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Pallavi Mishra & Ors. in DBSAW No. 1227/2019 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various cases mentioned above. The ibid decision is also subject to the following directions of the Division Bench of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in cases of Defendant's D-1 & D-2 in DBSAW No. 1520/2019 & DBSAW 152272019 clubbed with the case of Pallavi Mishra & Ors. in DBSAW No. 1227/2019 dated 15.10.2019 which are as under:- "Learned counsel for the appellants at this stage expressed an apprehension that third party i....