9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty in question and in actual physical possession of the same. There is no rebuttal from the side of the respondent in this regard - The property in question was attached without affording opportunities of the appellants. The appellants are bona fide purchasers. In the present case, the case of the appellants are in a better footing as the property in question has been acquired prior to the alleged commission of offences by the husband of Smt. Seema Garg and there is no allegation that the proceeds of crime has been used in any manner to acquire the property in question - There is nothing on record to show that any prosecution complaint with respect to property in question has been filed. The provisional attachment order coupled with order dated 20.10.2016 of the adjudicating authority to the extent of property in question purchased by the appellants is set aside - application disposed off. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntained with DBC Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market Branch, Ludhiana. (d) That the offences punishable under Section 420,467 and 471 of I.P.C. ,1860 registered under FIR No. 126 dated 26.07.2013, as committed by above mentioned accused persons are predicate offence under PMLA, 2002, accordingly an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) bearing no. ECIR/JLZO/06/2013 dated 14.08.2013 was registered by Jalandhar Zonal Office of Directorate of Enforcement, for investigation of the matter under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering act, 2002. During the investigation conducted under the Provisions of PMLA, 2002, it emerged that M/s Jaldhara Exports, Ludhiana having VAT no. 03472071375 had obtained VAT refund of ₹ 1,56,76,190/- from Excise and Taxation Department Ludhiana. It was seen that VAT refund amount totaling ₹ 1,56,76,160/- was transferred on 26.03.2013 in the SBI account no. 30353206938 of M/s Jaldhara Exports, thereafter the same was transferred to SBI account no. 32857020457 of M/s Jaldhara Exports. Afterwards the same was disbursed in the different accounts of Smt. Sangeeta Garg w/o Jagmohan Garg Proprietor of M/s Chetan Exports, Umesh Kuamr S/o Jagmohan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the knowledge of Smt. Seema Garg who had intentionally and deliberately suppressed this material fact before the authority and the authority and the department did not follow due diligence and in fact were negligent as they did not even care to investigate to ascertain the true and correct facts. (f) That is settled law, that it is not the property, but the sale consideration which is liable to the attached thus as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in C. Chellamuthu Case, it was the sale consideration which had passed on to Smt. Seema Garg which ought to have been attached by the Department. (g) That the appellants had purchased the said property in question much before any action was initiated by the Enforcement Directorate, and as such when the appellants purchased the property in question there was no prohibitory or any prohibition order issued by the Enforcement Directorate, thus only for this reason his sale deed was registered. (h) That after the present appeals were filed before this Tribunal, the appellants and all other persons whether directly or remotely involved with the said transaction were summoned by the Enforcement Directorate's Zonal Office at Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Smt. Seema Garg. That the respondent have never stated that the appellants were or are in connivance with Mrs Seema Garg, the respondent has further failed to establish any live link or nexus between the appellants and Smt. Seema Garg, there have been no inter connected transactions of any kind between the appellants and Smt. Seems Garg other than the sale deed in question. The respondent has failed to prove that sale consideration paid by the appellants were obtained through illegitimate means, the appellants have proved beyond doubt that their purchase are genuine and the property in their hands is untainted, as the respondent has been negligent in investigating the matter now the only course available to the respondent is to attach sale proceeds in the hands of Smt. Seema Garg and not the property of the appellants as they are genuine legitimate bonafide purchaser without knowledge. (k) That, the said property measuring 405 sq yards was purchased by Smt. Seema Garg in the year 2011 and has been charged by the respondents for the scheduled offences which she has alleged to have been committed in the year 2012-2013, that even otherwise the appellants had purchase the property i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not dispute the fact that the Smt. Seema Garg executed power of attorney in favour of Mr. Vikas Jain who executed the sale deeds in favour of the appellants and another on 03.05.2013. It is reveled from the copies of documents that the Vendees of the entire property in question repaid the loan amount borrowed by Smt. Seema Garg from Bank of India and got the property in question released from the bank's mortgage before the execution of the sale deeds. (e) The most important facts in this case is that the allegation against Sh. Vinod Kumar husband of Smt. Seema Garg was that he made fraudulent claims of VAT refund of ₹ 1.56 crore from the Government during the financial year 2012-13. It means the offences of the year 2012- 13. Whereas the property in question was acquired in the year 2011 by Smt. Seema Garg. (f) It is the contention of the respondent that the property in question has been attached as value thereof. There is no allegation that the property in question has been acquired out of proceeds of crime. When the case was registered the appellants and others have already purchased the property in question and in actual physical possession of the same. There is no re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
