Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Deific Abode LLP Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court)
Appeal Number : WPA No. 11123 of 2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 16/04/2021
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Deific Abode LLP Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court)

The fundamental point of contention, as advanced by Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is the unconscionable and illegal ‘retrospective applicability’ of the 1988 Act, leading to these proceedings.

When the matter was last taken up, Mr. Khaitan had conspicuously drawn my attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India (WPO No. 687 of 2017) dated December 12, 2019, which had interpreted the amendment Act of 2016 to the 1988 Act to be prospective in nature, and had also ruled that in the absence of enabling procedural rules under the 1988 Act when the immovable property was purchased, the respondent authorities could not initiate any proceedings in respect of the same. In other words, what was to be noted was the fact that while the 1988 Act entered the statute books, no procedural rules were framed under Section 8 of the 1988 Act for the declaration of the benami property, rendering the 1988 Act effective, merely on paper. As a result, in spite of the amendment Act of 2016 which introduced the definitions of “benami property” and “benami transaction”, in sub-sections of (8) and (9) of Section (2) of the 1988 Act, such amendment would not be applicable in respect of transactions pertaining to immovable properties, which predated the implementation of the amendment Act of 2016.

However, Mr. Khaitan had fairly brought to my notice that the Division Bench ruling rendered in M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd (supra) had been assailed before the Honble Supreme Court vide a Special Leave Petition bearing SLP (C) No. 2784/2020 wherein the Apex Court had passed the following order dated February 3, 2020:

“In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order in so far as it holds the 2016 amendment of the Benami Transactions Act,  1988 was prospective in nature, shall remain stayed.”

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
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031