TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d validity of the common order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) at New Delhi in Review Application Nos. i) FPA-PBPT-948/GWH/2019, ii) FPAP019, iii) FPA-PBPT-965/GWH/2019, iv) FPA-PBPT-966/GWH/2019, v) FPA-PBPT- 967/GWH/2019, vi) FPA-PBPT-968/GWH/2019, vii) FPA-PBPT-969/GWH/2019, viii) FPA-PBPT-970/GWH/2019, ix) FPA-PBPT-973/GWH/2019 & x) FPA-PBPT- 974/GWH/2019. 3. The facts of the case is that a search and seizure operation had been conducted on 25.03.2015 at the residence of one Sri Pradip Kumar Saha, Proprietor of M/s Pioneer Foreign Liquor Shop, Agartala, whereupon the seized documents and other evidences allegedly revealed that Shri Pradip Kumar Saha had entered into numerous Benami transactions and was operating several liquor shops in the names of other persons, including the shop of the present appellants. 4. The Ministry of Finance, vide Notification No. 40/2017/F No.173/429/2016- ITA, notified the appointment of an Initiating Officer to perform the fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not retrospectively have been clearly stated in paragraph 127.1 and 127.4. The entire paragraph 127 of the above judgment is reproduced hereinbelow as follows : "127. In view of the above discussion, we hold as under: 127.1. Section 3(2) (sic Section 3) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. 127.2. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended 1988 Act, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. 127.3. The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions. 127.4. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. 127.5. The authorities concerned cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered Into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act viz. 25-10-2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... e) Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25.10.2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or 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". In the light of the facts available on record, we find that the appeals are covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Union of India & Anr. vs M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd." (supra). Therefore, the orders of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the action of Initiating Officer needs to be interfered and accordingly the impugned order and the proceedings initiated by the respondent in reference to the alleged benami transactions of a period prior to the Amendment Act of 2016 are set aside. These appeals are allowed in view of the aforesaid. It is however made clear that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... seek a review in view of the present judgment ." 12. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, allowing the review petition in Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, the respondent Union of India herein submitted review petitions praying for recalling the common order dated 07.12.2022 and for condoning the delay in filing the review petition before the learned Appellate Tribunal. 13. The learned Appellate Tribunal thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, recalled its earlier order, by allowing the review petitions and restoring the appeals of the appellants for further proceedings. The impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal is reproduced herein below as follows:- "The arguments on the Review Application and the application for Condonation of Delay were made by both the parties at length. This Tribunal has decided similar Review Application and the application of Condonation of Delay vide its elaborate order dated 10.07.2025. It is covering all the arguments of the parties on the application of Condonation of Delay and Review Application. Both the applications have been allowed therein. Thus, this Review Applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard to whether an appeal filed under Section 49 of the Act is to be heard by a Division Bench or a Single Bench of this Court, though Section 260B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be heard only by a Division Bench of this Court. 17. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 18. With regard to the submission of the respondents that there is nothing to show in the Gauhati High Court Rules, as to whether an appeal arising out of Section 49 of the Act can be heard by a Division Bench or a Single Bench of this Court, we do not find any bar for this Court to decide the present appeal. 19. The other issue that has to be decided is as to whether the finality given to the issue vide order dated 07.12.2022, which had been made on the basis of the judgment dated 23.08.2022 passed in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 315 with regard to the alleged Benami transactions that had been allegedly entered into by Shri Pradip Kumar Saha with the appellants, on the basis of a search and seizure operation that had been conducted prior to the amendment of the Act, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich the judgment of the court is based, is reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, it shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Thus, even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed." (emphasis in original) 58. The final one is a decision of the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation vs. K.S. Puttaswami, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 1 (Aadhaar Review-5 J.). The majority was of the following view: (SCC p. 5, para 2) "2. The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26-9-2018. We have perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26-9-2018 is made out. We hasten to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be re....