TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to as the COFEPOSA Act ) by the petitioner authority on or about 28.04.1975. 3.2 It is the case of the petitioner that during investigation carried out by them to find out the properties acquired by the detenue by illegal means it was found that respondent has acquired some properties illegally and did not file any income tax returns till 1969 when he purchased the property and filed returns of the income tax for the previous year i.e. from 1965 onwards without producing any books of accounts. 3.3 Therefore, petitioner had issued show-cause notice under Section 6 of the SAFEMA calling upon the respondent to explain the source of income and to show cause that why such properties should not be forfeited under SAFEMA. 3.4 It is alleged that even after ample opportunities, respondent has not produced any evidence to prove his business activities, so as to justify the income and purchasing of properties which are subject matter of this litigation and for which, order of forfeiture was passed by the petitioner. Details of such properties are not much material at this stage and, therefore, reproduction of such minute details is avoided since such details are available on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detenue. On the contrary, it is observed by the appellate authority, that there is cogent evidence on record to show that the properties have been independently acquired by the appellant himself out of his own money and that either they are purchased by virtue of registered sale deeds even before the Act came into force or they are not even remotely traceable to the detenue. It is also observed by the appellate authority that ample evidence was produced before the competent authority to show that the properties under reference were acquired legally and they have been duly reflected in the books of accounts of the appellant as well as in the income tax returns and wealth tax returns filed by the appellant but the competent authority has totally forgotten to deal with such documents and erred in observing that income tax returns were filed with a view to cover up the sources which have come from illegal earnings of the detenue, though there is no evidence that they were purchased by illegal earnings of the detenue. The most convincing reason assigned by the Appellate Tribunal is to the effect that in the relevant year for which respondent has paid income tax are between 1965 to 1969 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7.5 Therefore, appellate authority has allowed the appeal and thereby show-cause notice was quashed and set aside. 8. While impugning such order, the petitioner - Union of India has taken so many factual and legal grounds so as to make an attempt to prove that show-cause notice was valid and proper. However, I do not find any substance in any such ground for the simple reason that the law is well settled as interpreted and decided by the Honourable Supreme Court. The petitioner has also tried to compare several other judgments and Special Act like TADA and NDPS Act to plead and to induce by this Court 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. It is difficult to believe such submission. 8.1 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rely upon the Honourable Supreme Court s judgment in case of Fatima (supra). 9. In any case, even decision in case of Kesar Devi vs. Union of India reported in 2003 (7) SCC 427 is also confirming the same view taken in the case of Fatima (supra) and, therefore, when two judgments of the Honourable 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. 10. 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. 11. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
