9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The forfeiture provision u/s 5 (unamended Act) of Benami Transactions prior to the Amendment was also declared unconstitutional being manifestly arbitrary. It is further held that any action of forfeiture under Section 5 of the Amendment Act of 2016 can be applied prospectively and not retroactively. All the proceeding for prosecution and confiscation were accordingly quashed finding it to be of the period prior to Amendment by the Act of 2016. The alleged benami transaction in this case is also of a period prior to the Amendment Act, 2016, thus covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case supra. The prayer is to set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority and also the proceedings in view of the judgment of the Apex Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above, this case is covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court. We quote para 130 (f) of the judgment of the Apex Court (supra) for ready reference. 130. In view of the above discussion, we hold as under: a) Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. b) In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. c) The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions. d) In rem forfeiture pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
