Writ not maintainable if due procedure followed by Authorities

K. Nagarajan Vs Adjudication Authority (Madras High Court)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition by making observations that the due procedure of law was followed by the Respondents under Section of the 24(4)(a)(i) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.

Facts:

A search warrant was issued in the name of Mrs.R.Sabitharani, the petitioner’s spouse to search her residence in Chennai, wherein the petitioner lives with his spouse. The search was conducted on 23rd and 24th of November, 2016. Some items of gold and an amount of Rs.7,28,300/- in cash were found during search. The Prohibitory Orders dated 24.11.2016 issued to the petitioner’s spouse by the Deputy Director (Investigation Wing), Income Tax Department were subsequently lifted on 18.01.2017. She was being assessed with reference to the assets found during search. Under these circumstances, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the third respondent passed the impugned order, dated 12.05.2017, arraying the petitioner as a beneficial owner of the property attached provisionally without any justification much less legal evidence of a definite nature. The third respondent passed the impugned order under Section 24(4)(a)(i) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 The amended Act came into force with effect from 01.11.2016. Thus, the petitioner states that the amended Act shall be applicable only to the Benami transactions entered into on or after the date of commencement of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 i.e. on or after 01.11.2016 as provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. Even the impugned order shows that the transaction alleged to be Benami transaction was entered into on 28.10.2016 and therefore, the impugned order passed by the third respondent with the approval of the second respondent lacks jurisdiction.

The petitioner further contended that the impugned order was passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner as mandated under Section 24(2) of the Act. Thus, the entire action initiated against the petitioner was in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.