2023 (8) TMI 1598

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... OURT] Therefore, the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the action of Initiating Officer needs to be interfered and accordingly the impugned order and the proceedings initiated by the respondent in reference to the alleged benami transaction of a period prior to the Amendment Act of 2016 are set aside. The appeal is allowed in view of the aforesaid.
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI CHAIRMAN AND SHRI V. ANANDARAJAN MEMBER For the Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Manmeet S. Arora, SPP Shri Chaitanya Mehta, Advocate ORDER This appeal has been preferred to challenge the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26(3) and 24(6) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ting Authority and also the proceedings in view of the judgment of the Apex Court supra. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal, however he could not contest that the benami transaction referred by the Benami Prohibition Officer is of a period prior to the Amendment Act, 2016. It is however submitted that the Department has filed a review petition, for review of the judgment in the case of "Union of India & Anr. v/s M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd." reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1064. Thus, if the appeal is allowed after governing it by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case supra, liberty be given to the Department to take the appropriate remedies in case of review of the judgment by the Apex Court. It may incl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , prescribed substantive provisions. d) In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. e) Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25.10.2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed. f) As this Court is not concerned with the constitutionality of such independent forfeiture proceedings contemplated under the 2016 Amendment Act on the other grounds, the aforesaid questions are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate procee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X