9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Rectification of Tribunal's order under section 20 of the Act based on alleged mistake in forfeiture order confirmation. Analysis: The petitioner sought rectification of the Tribunal's order under section 20 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, regarding the confirmation of forfeiture of three plots. The petitioner argued that there was a mistake apparent on the face of the record as the source of acquisition of the plots was from a lawful source, duly explained before income-tax authorities. The petitioner essentially wanted a rehearing of the case on merits, contending that the Tribunal's finding on the source of acquisition was erroneous. However, the Competent Authority and the Appellate Tribunal had found that all sources of acquisition of properties emanated from the petitioner, despite explanations provided for the investments made. The Tribunal noted that the rectification sought required reconsideration of the case on merits, which did not fall within the scope of section 20 of the Act for correcting errors apparent on the record. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification under section 20 is not meant for correcting errors on the merits but is confined to correcting glaring errors on the face of the record. The Tribunal cited previous judgments to support this view, stating that rectification cannot be based on long-drawn processes of reasoning or debatable points of law. The Tribunal found no grounds for rectification based on the petitioner's arguments, as they required a review of the case on its merits, which was beyond the scope of section 20. The Tribunal also identified a typographical error in the order regarding the ownership of the plots, which was rectified to accurately reflect the ownership details as per the Competent Authority's order. Despite the delay in disposing of the rectification application due to the retirement of Tribunal members and adjournments requested by the petitioner's counsel, the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the petition, except for the rectification ordered for the typographical error. The Tribunal clarified that the delay in disposal was not a bar to considering the rectification application on its merits. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
|
