Union Budget 2023-24 + FINANCE Bill, 2023

Rationalization of the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (the PBPT Act)

Under the existing provisions of section 46 of the PBPT Act, any person, including the Initiating Officer (IO), aggrieved by the order of the Adjudicating Authority, may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within a period of 45 days from the date of the order. The order often takes time to reach the office of the Initiating Officer or the approving authority and, it is difficult to file an appeal within the prescribed time limit and leads to delay in such filing.

2. Hence, it is proposed that the provisions of section 46 of the PBPT Act may be amended to allow the filing of appeal against the order of the Adjudicating authority within a period of 45 days from the date when such order is received in the office of the Initiating Officer or the aggrieved person as the case may be. Similar change is also proposed with reference to the order passed by an authority under section 54A of the PBPT Act.

3. Under the existing provisions of section 2(18) of the PBPT Act, the ‘High Court’, for the purpose of filing appeal against the order of the Adjudicating authority, have been defined as Jurisdiction of such High Court within which either the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, or if the aggrieved party is Government then, jurisdiction of the High Court within which the respondent, or any respondent in case of multiple respondents resides, or carries on business or works for gain. It has been observed that the non-residents against whom proceedings under PBPT Act have been initiated and who does not fall in the category of appellant or respondent mentioned in the definition, do not fall under the jurisdiction of any High Court.

4. Hence, to enable the determination of High Court jurisdiction for the non-resident appellants or respondents, it is proposed to amend section 2(18) of the PBPT Act to modify the definition of ‘High Court’ by inserting a proviso so as to provide that where the aggrieved party does not ordinarily reside or carry on business or personally work for gain in the jurisdiction of any High Court or where the Government is the aggrieved party and any of the respondents do not ordinarily reside or carry on business or personally work for gain in the jurisdiction of any High Court, then the High Court shall be such within whose jurisdiction the office of the Initiating Officer is located.

5. These amendments will take effect from the 1st day of April, 2023.

[Clause 152]

 

---

Full Text:

Union Budget 2023-24 + FINANCE Bill, 2023

Appeal filing period revised - time runs from receipt of the adjudicating authority's order at the IO or aggrieved party. The amendments shift the start of the appeal limitation period to the date an Adjudicating Authority's order is received in the office of the Initiating Officer or the aggrieved person, and they extend the same rule to orders under section 54A. They also modify the definition of High Court to provide jurisdictional clarity for non-resident appellants or respondents by designating the High Court where the Initiating Officer's office is located when no ordinary residence, business or gainful work place falls within any High Court's territory. Effective date: 1 April 2023.