Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2016 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 96 - HC - CustomsForfeiture of property under SAFEMA - Properties acquired illegally and non filing of income tax returns - Non production of evidence to prove his business activities so as to justify the income and purchasing of properties - Petitioner had issued show-cause notice under Section 6 of the SAFEMA calling upon the respondent to explain the source of income - Held that:- there is no substance on a ground that the petitioner has taken so many factual and legal grounds so as to make an attempt to prove that show-cause notice was valid and proper as the law is well settled as interpreted and decided by the Honourable Supreme Court. Also it is difficult to believe that it would be difficult to get direct evidence to control grave offence and, therefore, burden of proof rests upon respondents to prove that what is pleaded by the authority is not correct rather than to ask the authority to prove that what is pleaded by them is correct fact. Petitioner has gone to the extent of challenging the impugned order by describing it as a non speaking order when it is pleaded that the Appellate Tribunal has neither considered the issue raised by the petitioner nor discussed the fact of the case. It is very much clear that the factual details are well discussed in such judgment and all issues are properly dealt with and answered by the Appellate Tribunal with reasonings and citations of relevant cases. Therefore, there is no substance in the petition when it is trying to misguide the judicial proceedings. Petitioner has disclosed relevant provisions of different Acts and few judgments and tried to emphasize that once the facts specified under the particular sections are established, then there may be statutory presumption of guilt which follows the punishment unless contrary is proved by the affected person. Thereby an attempt was made to submit that nexus is implicit and is not required to be established in such proceedings under the special act, wherein reverse burden is imposed upon the person against whom the action is initiated by the competent authority. Also the petitioner has tried to emphasize that the judgment in case of Fatima Mohammed Amin vs. Union of India [2003 (1) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT] is not a good judgment and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not interpreted the judgment of Constitution Bench properly. If it is so, first of all it would be necessary for the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court to rectify its interpretation but in absence of any such exercise, this Court has to rely upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s judgment in case of Fatima (supra). Even decision in case of Kesar Devi vs. Union of India reported in [2003 (7) TMI 650 - SUPREME COURT] is also confirming the same view taken in the case of Fatima (supra) and, therefore, when two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are conclusive in its findings, an attempt of the petitioner herein to allege that the interpretation of previous judgment in these two judgments is not proper, cannot be upheld. It cannot be ignored that this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where the Court has to verify the limited issue that whether proper care has been taken by the authority in passing impugned order or not. Thereby only because petitioner is not comfortable with some of the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court then they have to prefer petitions against such order, unless and until they get the Supreme Court judgments reversed by the Honourable Supreme Court itself, this Court cannot uphold their pleadings and submissions which are contrary to the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court. - Decided against the petitioner
|