Case Law Details
Muhammed Suhaib P C. Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Muhammed Suhaib P.C. challenging a show cause notice and provisional attachment order under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The petitioner argued that the cash seized, amounting to ₹1.56 crore, had already been assessed as his income and could not be treated as benami property. Additionally, he contended that the attachment order was unjustified and required judicial intervention. However, the respondent countered that multiple individuals had claimed ownership of the seized cash, necessitating proceedings under the Benami Act. The respondent also argued that the matter was still at the preliminary stage of a show cause notice, making High Court intervention premature.
After reviewing the submissions, the court ruled that the petitioner had yet to file objections against the show cause notice and had an available statutory remedy. Since the proceedings were still in progress, the court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Instead, it directed the petitioner to file objections within three weeks and present his arguments before the adjudicating authority. The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner retained the right to pursue available legal remedies under the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 show cause notice as well as the provisional attachment order Ext.P5 issued under Section 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 [for short, ‘the Act’].
2. Sri P. Raghunathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the show cause notice is not maintainable since the cash allegedly seized, which is the subject matter of the show cause notice, cannot be treated as a benami property as the said amount had already been assessed as income of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s benami account is also perverse, warranting an interference by this Court.
3. Sri. Navaneeth N. Nath, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that, large amount of cash was seized from two persons and on production of the said currency before the learned Magistrate, six persons claimed ownership to the said amount. It is in view of the aforesaid circumstances that the provisions of the Act have been invoked and show cause notices were issued, apart from ordering provisional attachment. The learned Standing counsel further submitted that, since it is only a show cause notice, it is too premature a stage for this Court to interfere. The learned Standing counsel also referred to the judgment dated 27.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No.30547/2024 wherein petitioners therein, who claimed ownership to the amount approached this Court challenging the show cause notice and the provisional attachment but this Court relegated them to pursue the remedies available under the Statute.
4. On a consideration of the rival contentions this Court notices that petitioner is challenging the show cause notice issued on 05.08.2024 directing him to explain why the property which was specifically mentioned as cash of Rs.1,56,00,000/- seized by Nilambur Police should not be treated as benami property as per the provisions of the Act. Petitioner has not yet filed an objection to the show cause notice. Similarly, on the same day of show cause notice, a provisional attachment order has also been issued. Since the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 are statutory proceedings, the petitioner has the remedy of preferring an objection against the show cause notice and obtain an adjudication on the said matter. He is at liberty to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority and since such a remedy is available, it is not proper for this Court to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Thus this Court finds no reason to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and decline the relief sought for.
6. However, petitioner is at liberty to file an objection within a period of three weeks from today. Petitioner is given liberty to raise all contentions before the appropriate authority.
Reserving the aforesaid liberty, this writ petition is dismissed.
Author Bio
