Satyajit Saha And 9 Ors Vs Union of India And 3 Ors (Gauhati High Court)
The Gauhati High Court, in this appeal filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, examined whether the Appellate Tribunal had correctly allowed review petitions filed by the Union of India and restored appeals that had earlier been disposed of in favour of the appellants.
The case originated from a search and seizure operation conducted on 25.03.2015 at the residence of Shri Pradip Kumar Saha, proprietor of a foreign liquor business. The authorities alleged that he had entered into several benami transactions and operated liquor shops in the names of other persons, including the appellants. Statements of the appellants were recorded in March 2018, show-cause notices under Section 24 of the Act were issued, and provisional attachment orders were passed on 25.06.2018. The Initiating Officer subsequently referred the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation of the attachments.
The Adjudicating Authority, by a common order dated 26.07.2019, held that the appellants were benamidars of Shri Pradip Kumar Saha and confirmed the action initiated against them. The appellants challenged this order before the Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of those appeals, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. on 23.08.2022, holding that the provisions introduced through the 2016 Amendment Act could not be applied retrospectively to transactions entered into before the amendment came into force. The Supreme Court further held that authorities could neither initiate nor continue confiscation proceedings relating to transactions entered into prior to the commencement of the 2016 Act.
