Home Case Index All Cases Benami Property Benami Property + AT Benami Property - 2023 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 1335 - AT - Benami PropertyBenami transaction - Beneficial owner of property - Provisional attachment order - scope of Amendment Act of 2016 - Amendment to Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 - HELD THAT - The issue raised in these petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Union of India Anr. vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (8) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT as held Section 2 (9) (A) and Section 2 (9) (C) are substantive provisions creating the offence of benami transaction. These two provisions are significantly and substantially wider than the definition of benami transaction under Section 2 (a) of the unamended 1988 Act. Therefore, Section 2 (9) (A) and Section 2 (9) (C) can only have effect prospectively. Central Government has notified the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016 as 01.11.2016. Therefore, these two provisions cannot be applied to a transaction which took place prior to 01.11.2016. As petitioners contends that review of the said judgment is pending. Since as of now the issue stands covered by the judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.(supra), we dismiss these special leave petitions for the same reasons and ground.
Issues:
1. Application of the Amendment Act of 2016 to benami transactions prior to the amendment. Analysis: The appeal challenged an order passed under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Act of 2016. The Benami Prohibition Unit initiated proceedings under the Amendment Act 2016 for a benami transaction that occurred before the amendment. The constitutional validity of certain provisions was questioned, and the Apex Court had previously ruled on this issue. The Court declared certain sections of the unamended Act and the amended provisions unconstitutional and held that actions under the Amendment Act 2016 can only be applied prospectively, not retroactively. The respondents did not contest that the benami transaction in question predated the Amendment Act of 2016. The appeal was mainly based on the judgment of the Apex Court in a specific case, which addressed the constitutionality of forfeiture provisions and the retroactive application of the Amendment Act 2016. The Tribunal found the appeal to be covered by the Apex Court's judgment and set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order related to the benami transaction occurring before the 2016 Amendment Act. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the Apex Court's judgment, quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondent regarding the benami transaction predating the Amendment Act of 2016. The decision left room for the respondent to pursue appropriate remedies if the Apex Court reviewed its judgment. Additionally, the Department could independently initiate actions under the prospective application of the Amendment Act 2016, as long as it did not conflict with the Apex Court's ruling. This detailed analysis highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the application of the Amendment Act of 2016 to benami transactions predating the amendment, as addressed in the judgment and subsequent appellate tribunal decision.
|