9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 477 - HC - Benami PropertyAttachment of the property under the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Since the amended provisions of Section 3 and the Chapter IV of said 1988 Act, including Section 24 therein are prospective in nature, i.e., w.e.f. 01.11.2016, Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, submits that the property of the petitioner, being the wife of said Durlav Chamua, transacted in the year 2011, cannot be attached by the impugned orders - HELD THAT - Submission of Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, has force. Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax, also admits that the amendments of said 1988 Act, brought into force on 01.11.2016, are prospective in nature. Issue notice, returnable by 19.06.2020 . As Mr. Sanjay Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax and Mr. G. Pegu, learned Government Advocate, Assam, have accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 2 and 3 respectively, no formal notices need be issued to those respondents. However, the petitioner shall serve requisite extra copies of this petition including the Annexures appended thereto to Mr. Sarma and Mr. Pegu on or before 22.05.2020.
Issues involved:
Attachment of property under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Analysis: The judgment concerns the attachment of the petitioner's property under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, based on allegations that the property was acquired through benami transactions managed by the petitioner's husband. The petitioner's counsel argued that the transactions in question took place in 2011, before the amendment of Section 3 of the Act in 2016. The counsel highlighted the unamended provisions of Section 3, which allowed property purchase in the name of a wife or unmarried daughter. However, the amended provisions of the Act, including Chapter IV and Section 24, are prospective from 01.11.2016. Therefore, the petitioner's property, acquired in 2011, cannot be attached under the amended provisions. The writ petition challenged the show cause notice and orders issued under Section 24(1) and 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended in 2016. The petitioner's counsel contended that the amendments to the Act are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively to transactions that occurred before the effective date of the amendments. The Standing Counsel for Income Tax also acknowledged the prospective nature of the amendments brought into force on 01.11.2016. The court issued notice for the matter to be returned by a specified date. The Standing Counsel for Income Tax and the Government Advocate for Assam accepted the notice on behalf of the respondents. The court directed the petitioner to provide extra copies of the petition to the respective counsels. Pending the returnable date, the court suspended the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice and orders issued under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, until the specified date. The judgment ordered the matter to be listed along with another related case. The court's decision was based on the prospective nature of the amendments to the Act, ensuring that the petitioner's property acquired before the amendments could not be attached under the amended provisions.
|
