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 →

Union of India Through Competent Authority Versus Abbasbhai Mulla Fazle Abbas And 10

2018 (1) TMI 568 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Brother of the present respondent was detained under the provisions COFEPOSA Act - Held that:- No 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 res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve and perusal of impugned judgment, makes it 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. - Special Civil Application No. 13354 of 2009 - Dated:- 9-1-2018 - MR. S. G. SHAH, J. For The Petitioner : Mr Devang Vyas, Advocate And Mr Harshe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

perused the relevant record, so also law applicable to such cases. 3. The brief facts arising from the record so as to drag the issue till this Court is to the effect that; 3.1 Brother of the present respondent was detained under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (herein after referred 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

operty at New Delhi which has, by its judgment and order dated 17.06.2009 quashed and set aside the show-cause notice and order of forfeiture of properties by allowing the appeal. 4. Such impugned order dated 17.06.2009 by the appellate Tribunal is a consolidated order in two appeals being FPA Nos. 27 and 28 of 1999. Since similar order of forfeiture was passed against two brothers of detenue namely Abbas Mulla Fazle Abbas and Ismail Mulla Fazle Abbas. It is also evident from record that the Cha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roperties. 6. Whereas, it is contended by the respondent, before the competent authority that there are several decisions by the Honourable Supreme Court that relatives and associates can brought in such proceedings only for the purpose of ensuring that whether illegally acquired properties of the convict or detenue are acquired or kept in their names, and in that case they do not escape from the net of the provisions of SAFEMA and COFEPOSA Act. But the only idea is to reach the property 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

at 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 be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appellate Tribunal is to the effect that in the relevant year for which respondent has paid income tax are between 1965 to 1969, when SAFEMA and COFEPOSA were not in existence and income tax returns have been accepted on the basis that they are independent savings of the appellant himself, which has no nexus with his brother the detenue. Therefore, it cannot be said that income tax return filed later on in the year 1969 while purchasing the properties were with ulterior motive to get rid of pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

initial investment is not proved. The appellate authority has recorded the details of properties and its source in detail which is not required to be reproduced herein, since I do not find any illegality or irregularity or perverseness in such discussion and findings, more particularly when properties are directly purchased by the respondent through registered sale deeds. 7.2 The appellate authority has also relied upon several previous decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court viz. (1)1994 (5) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The appellate authority has thereafter given detailed reasoning for its conclusion as above and concluded that the show cause notice is silent on providing any connection or link with the illegal earnings of the detenue apart from merely stated by the competent authority that reason to believe that the properties described in the Schedule enclosed hereto which are held by you are illegally acquired properties within the meaning of Clause (c) of Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act. 7.5 T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

are 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 impu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tance in the petition when it is trying to misguide the judicial proceedings. 8.2 Thereupon 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n ble Superme Court passed in the case of Fatima Mohd. Amin, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 436 and in the case of Abdulla, as reported in 2006 (SC-4) GJX- 1080-SC, laying down the condition of mentioning about existence of nexus or link between the properties sought for forfeiture and illegal activities / illegal income of the detenue / convict in Notice issued have been passed on the wrong interpretation of the judgment of the Constitution Bench delivered in the case of Attorney General vs. Amritlal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s interpretation but in absence of any such exercise, this Court has to rely upon the Honourable Supreme Courts 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 ju .....

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