Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Santosh Bhadoriya Vs Union of India through its secretary (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition No.5861 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 13/03/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Santosh Bhadoriya Vs Union of India through its secretary (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

The case of Santosh Bhadoriya Vs Union of India revolves around a challenge to a show cause notice and provisional attachment order issued under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The petitioner contests the legality of these actions, citing recent judicial precedents and amendments to the Act. The legal issue at hand primarily concerns the applicability of the amended provisions of the Act and the retrospective effect on transactions predating the amendments.

Background: In the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Santosh Bhadoriya questions the show cause notice and provisional attachment order issued under the Act of 1988. The petitioner argues that the alleged benami transaction occurred before the amendments to the Act and, therefore, should not be subject to the amended provisions. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India & another vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, the petitioner contends that the show cause notice and attachment order are legally flawed.

Contention of the Petitioner: Santosh Bhadoriya’s legal counsel argues that the actions taken under the Act of 1988 are invalid in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited. They contend that the amendments to the Act cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions predating the amendments. Additionally, they rely on the decision of the Appellate Tribunal and judgments from other High Courts to support their position.

Contention of the Respondent: The Assistant Solicitor General, representing the Union of India, asserts that the show cause notice and attachment order are legally sound. They argue that the amended provisions of the Act can be applied to transactions occurring after the amendments, including those involving shares. They emphasize the broad definition of ‘property’ under the Act, which encompasses shares subject to adjudication.

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

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031