Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Competent Authority, Delhi Versus Manpreet Singh Oberoi

2017 (11) TMI 559 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Forfeiture of properties of respondents - smuggling - COFEPOSA Act - It is alleged that the respondent and his associates used to over-value the consignments declared before the customs authorities in India. Whereas, the consignments were declared to be of exorbitant values in India, the declarations made before the customs authorities of the importing countries indicated a significantly lower value. - Main contention of petitioner is that the documents produced by the respondent to establis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tent Authority had not even discussed that the firm involved in the illegal activities were established in the year 2000 and there was no allegation that respondent was involved in any illegal activity prior to the year 2000. - Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.(C) 4407/2017 - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - MR. VIBHU BAKHRU J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashutosh Nandan Atrey, Advocate. Respondent Through: None O R D E R VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The petitioner - the competent authority (he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ollowing properties under the provisions of SAFEMA:- (1) Ms Oberoi Industries, 2/1B Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi; (2) M/s Oxford Fashion 2/1B Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. (The abovementioned properties are hereafter also referred to as the said properties ) 3. The Tribunal accepted the respondent s contention that the said properties had been purchased in the year 1993, which is much prior to the alleged acts constituting violation of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pondent. Thereafter, on 19.10.2003, the respondent was declared a Proclaimed Offender by the learned ACMM. The respondent was detained on 29.08.2003 and the said order was confirmed on the advice of the Advisory Board on 10.11.2003. 4.2 The principal allegation against the respondent was that he along with his associates, was engaged in fraudulent exports of cheap quality of automotive parts (Fuel Pump, Diaphragm) Microphones & Readymade Garments under Duty Entitlement, Passbook Scheme - cum .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eclared the value of the goods in question and fraudulently availed of export benefits under the above-mentioned schemes. 4.3 In view of the above, there is no dispute the respondent is a person covered under Section 2(a)(d) of SAFEMA and his properties that fall with the definition of illegally acquired property within the meaning of Section 3(c) of SAFEMA, are liable to be forfeited under Section 7 of SAFEMA. 4.4 In accordance with Section 6(1) of SAFEMA, a Show Cause Notice dated 29.03.2005 w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rther stated that he was aged about 19 years at the material time when the said property was purchased. He further stated that his mother, who was then working with the Ministry of Defence, Government of India since the year 1962, had provided ₹15,000/- for purchase of the said properties. Respondent s mother also filed an affidavit confirming the same. 4.5 The Competent Authority rejected the respondent s contention and passed the order dated 04.03.2016 for forfeiture of the said properti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f investment and, therefore, the contention that she had given ₹15,000/- to her son to acquire the said properties could not be accepted. 5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent produced various documents which are referred to in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, which reads as under:- (i) Copies of the affidavits dated 25th March, 2006 sworn in by Smt. Amerjeet Kaur Mother of the appellant regarding submission and sources of investment in purchase of property bearing No.2/1B, Anand Parbat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ale and transfer of property in question." (vi) Copy of pensioner s identity card of Smt. Amerjeet Kaur. 6. The original documents were also produced by the respondent before the Tribunal as is noted in paragraph 16 of the impugned order, which is set out below:- 16. The original documents were produced by the appellant before us. The said documents, i.e. Receipt, General Power of Attorney, Sale Agreement and Affidavit were duly attested by the Notary on 26th March, 1993. The agreement to s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also executed an affidavit which is attested by the Notary Public, confirming that he has sold and transferred his property measuring 12 x 36 on ground floor and one room and open terrace on first floor built of land measuring 48 Sq. Yards to Manpreet Singh son of Sh. Amarjit Singh Oberoi and he has received the full consideration from the said purchaser. He also deposed that he has also executed the General power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will and a Receipt in favour of the appellant and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version