TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1098X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the reply on merits to the show cause notice was indeed filed whereas Shri Lal refuted the same. We are not inclined to enter into this aspect at this stage. Since the petitioner is at liberty to raise all relevant aspects before Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 of the Act of 1988, interference is declined. - WP. No.3957/2019 & 3963/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-12-2019 - Sujoy Paul And Smt. Anjuli Palo JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Counsel with Shri L. Arora, learned counsel For the Respondents : Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel ORDER Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of the parties, these matters are analogously heard on admission and application for vacation of stay. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned senior counsel has argued the matters on the strength of facts of WP. No.3957/2019. The petitioners have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned show cause notice dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure P/11) and Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) dated 10.01.2019 (Annexure P/12). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the respondents supported the impugned notice/orders. He submits that the petitioners have not filed reply on merits despite getting opportunity and relevant documents. Reliance is placed on letter dated 01.02.2019 (Annexure P/14) whereby the petitioner was informed that the relevant documents have been supplied. If the petitioner still intends to get certain documents, he may approach the authorities and he shall be permitted to inspect the relevant documents and even may be permitted to obtain copies. Shri Lal submits that impugned notice is tentative in nature and after passing the order as envisaged in Sub-section (5) of Section 24 of the Act, the petitioners have a valuable right and forum to get their points redressed. The adjudication will be made by Adjudicating Authority wherein all necessary points can be taken note of. At this stage, interference may be declined. He placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in WP. No.10280/17 (Kailash Assudani vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Ors.) , which was affirmed by the Divisional Bench in WA. No.704/2017 decided on 16.08.2017. He also placed reliance on judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court passed in WP(C) No.3819 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act. Section 26 (3) makes it clear that the adjudicating authority will examine the entire issue and relevant material. Sub-section (3) of Section 26 reads as under: (3) The Adjudicating Authority shall, after- (a) considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under sub-section (1); (b) making or causing to be made such inquiries and calling for such reports or evidence as it deems fit; and (c) taking into account all relevant materials, provide an opportunity of being heard to the person specified as a benamidar therein, the Initiating Officer, and any other person who claims to be the owner of the property, and, thereafter, pass an order- (i) holding the property not to be a benami property and revoking the attachment order; or (ii) holding the property to be a benami property and confirming the attachment order, in all other cases. A plain reading of Sub-section (3) makes it clear that the adjudicating authority is obliged to examine the stand of alleged Benamindar in reply to the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner, the further forums of judicial review of said order is available to the petitioner before the appellate tribunal and then before this Court. Hence,against the tentative/provisional order, no interference is warranted by this court at this stage. As per the scheme of the Act, the petitioner can raise all possible grounds before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority is best suited and statutorily obliged to consider all relevant aspects. Thus, at this stage no case is made out for interference. Moreso, when adjudicating authority has already fixed the hearing on 23.08.2017. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. (Emphasis Supplied) This order of Writ Court got a stamp of approval by the Division Bench in WA. No.704/2017. In the said judgment, Division Bench opined as under:- We do not find any merit in the present appeal. It is the Adjudicating Authority who is to decide the question of Benami nature of the property . The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act contemplates the issuance of show cause notice as to why the property specified in the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
