9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated October 10, 1980, praying for supply, inter alia, of the reasons recorded. The gist of the reasons recorded seems to have been supplied by the Competent Authority, by letter dated January 1, 1981. It appears that no action was taken by the Competent Authority or his office, till after about a period of eight years ; a notice of hearing was issued on December 7, 1988. It appears that on December 26, 1988, some hearing took place as per the impugned order, and the "person affected" undertook to file a written explanation for the capital contribution in the relevant concerns which were the subject-matter of proceedings. It is not clear from the impugned order as to whether any particular time frame was fixed. At this stage, we have seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns are made before him, and is able to keep a control over the proceedings. But what we find is that some Inspecting Officer took up the files even when the hearings were fixed by notice under section 7 of the Act. In this case, the Competent Authority who went to hold a camp at Kasargod, did not even bother to look up the file, because what we find is a memorandum recorded by the same Inspecting Officer on January 6, 1989, to which the Competent Authority only appended his counter-signatures. Again nothing happened for a period of about four years, till another hearing notice was issued to the appellant under section 7 by letter dated May 11, 1993, by the Inspecting Officer, on behalf of the Competent Authority. We find, however, on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. We say so particularly in the background of the manner in which the said Competent Authority who had not proceeded for one year after taking notice of the case and his predecessors had been sleeping over the matter for a period of more than 12 years after issuing notice under section 6(1) of the Act, and in that context the appellant could very legitimately ask that at least he should know as to what he was now required to do, and that he may be given some time for this purpose. That by itself calls for our interference, but even on reverting to the merits, we find that the subject-matter of forfeiture is neither any movable or immovable property, but some running business of a petty nature of watch repair shop, where according to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We do not find anything from the observations of the Competent Authority that there was any information on the file that in the years 1964 or 1971, the appellant was indulging in any smuggling or related unlawful activities which could give rise to the assumption that even these meagre investments of Rs. 1,000 in 1964 or Rs. 2,500 in 1971, or Rs. 7,500 in 1973, were not savings from the business income or other savings of the appellant. Only then the onus under section 8 of the Act could legitimately be placed on the appellant. The object of the Act is not to mechanically proceed against each and every item of property, even a small running business, and everything has to be appreciated in proper perspective and in the setting of the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
