AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....01/699, dated 13-8-2002. 2. The facts leading to the institution of the present petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is a fisherman and agriculturist by birth and he earns his livelihood only from fishing and agricultural work. The petitioner has received a notice from the respondent No. 1 on 22-9-1988 under Section 6(1) of Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) on the ground that the petitioner was convicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act on 16-6-1979. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no allegation to the effect that the petitioner was previously convicted in any proceedings under Section 6(1) of the (SAFEMA for short) and any other proceedings were initiat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st notice dated 22-9-1988 and so prima facie proceedings were not initiated within reasonable time and only on the ground of delay the notice as well as the order passed by the competent authority dated 16-3-2001 and the order of the appellate Tribunal dated 6-8-2002 confirming the same is required to be quashed and set aside, (ii) that the land in question was purchased in the year 1968 i.e. before 20 years from the date of the issuance of the second notice and before 32 years of the actual proceedings and date of order, and therefore, time-barred and so also the petition is required to be allowed, (iii) that the petitioner was serving in the Navigation Department of the Government of India till 1964 and the petitioner was getting salary o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show cause notice issued under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA against the present petitioner was challenged by the present petitioner along with his brother by filing Special Civil Application No. 699 of 1980 and proceedings initiated on the basis of such notices were stayed by this Court in March, 1980 and the stay was lifted partially in April, 1987. Mr. Sejpal next argued that the petitioner was also convicted on 16-6-1979 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Addl. Chief Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 79 of 1978 (Annexure C) to the affidavit-in-reply, and hence also, cause of action arises for fresh show cause notice under Section 6(1) and notice dated 22-9-1988 was issued proposing to forfeit the properties. Mr. Sejpal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted it was not necessary to initiate proceedings, and therefore, there is no delay on the part of the department to initiate proceedings. As soon as the stay order was vacated by this Court the respondent-authority has issued the second notice and so proceedings were initiated within reasonable time and no delay is caused. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has challenged the first notice which was issued on 22-11-1979 by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 679 of 1980 including vires of the Act and in the same proceedings the said impugned notice was stayed during the pendency of the said petition and only in April, 1987 the stay was partially lifted. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the above referred petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner in continuation of the first notice dated 22-11-1979 and merely because there is absence of reference to the first notice in the second notice, it could not be said that the second notice was not issued in pursuance of the first notice dated 22-11-1979. 7. Coming now with regard to the properties acquired by the petitioner, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme with the Income-tax Department the present petitioner has declared his agricultural income which was a legal evidence to the effect that the petitioner had income from agriculture. However, it may be noted that the appellate Tribunal while dealing with this issue has rightly held that the present petitioner had ....