TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that a batch of appeals [ 2023 (12) TMI 620 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] cases, challenging the very same impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, was disposed of, by this court, by passing a detailed judgment as on date, the decision of the Hon'ble supreme court in Union of India v. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt Ltd. [ 2022 (8) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT] holds the field and hence, the arguments advanced on the side of the appellants that the provisions of Section 5 of the Amended Act, 2016 have to be applied retrospectively, cannot be countenanced. Further, it is to be noted that in the Review Petition (Civil)[ 2023 (1) TMI 1327 - SC ORDER] f iled by the Department to review the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellate Tribunal, was disposed of, by this court, by passing a detailed judgment on 17.11.2023, the relevant passage of which is usefully extracted below: 6. The issue involved in this batch of appeals lies in a narrow campus. It is vehemently contended on the side of the appellants that Section 5 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 will have retrospective effect and therefore, the common order passed by the Tribunal, to the contrary, is liable to be interfered with. It is further submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals filed by the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it is violative of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution. b) In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. c) The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions. d) In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. e) Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25.10.2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew that section 2 (9) (a) and 2 (9) (c) inserted by the Amendment Act, 2016 are prospective in nature because these two provisions have significantly and substantially widened the definition of 'benami transaction' than as was there in the unamended Benami Property Act of 1988. Further, taking note of the fact that Central Government had notified the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016 as 01-11-2016 this Court held that these two provisions cannot be applied to a transaction,which took place prior to 01- 1102016. The Amendment Act of 2016 is not merely procedural but prescribes substantial provisions. Therefore, concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confisctation proceedings for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 9. In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that as on date, the decision of the Hon'ble supreme court in Union of India v. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt Ltd (supra) holds the field and hence, the arguments advanced on the side of the appellants that the provisions of Section 5 of the Amended Act, 2016 have to be applied retrospectively, cannot be countenanced. Further, it is to be noted that in the Review Petition (Civil) Diary No. 34619 of 2022 filed by the Department to review the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt Ltd., by order dated 25.01.2023, delay was condoned and the application for oral hearing of the review petition was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Bench of equal stength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5 Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limied v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it. Thus, we find no reason much less valid reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, which is impugned herein. 10. At this stage, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellants submitted that liberty may be given to the appellants to proceed further depending on the outcome of the Review Petition pending before the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
