Nexus Feeds Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(9)(A), Section 2(9)(C), Section 24

WP/14713/2021HC TelanganaHBHC01023999202108 March 2022Bench: UJJAL BHUYAN,CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA137 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, are substantive provisions that significantly widen the definition of a benami transaction compared to the unamended Act. Consequently, these provisions can only have prospective effect and cannot be applied to transactions that took place before November 1, 2016, the notified date for the coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016. Since the transaction in question was dated December 14, 2011, the show cause notice, provisional attachment order, and the impugned order dated March 30, 2021, were deemed null and void for being without jurisdiction. The Court found the revenue's reliance on the Madras High Court decision to be of little assistance. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and quashed. The writ petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Nexus Feeds Ltd. and others, filed multiple writ petitions before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petitions challenged orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Initiating Officer) and approved by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Approving Authority) under the Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit. The impugned orders, dated March 29, 2021, and March 30, 2021, were challenged as arbitrary, illegal, violative of natural justice, and without jurisdiction. The core of the dispute revolves around transactions that occurred prior to November 1, 2016, which the petitioners argue are not subject to the amended provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Solicitor General, contested these petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, as amended, which define a benami transaction, can have retrospective effect, thereby applying to transactions that occurred prior to November 1, 2016? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) are substantive provisions that create an offence by widening the definition of a benami transaction. They contended that these provisions cannot have retrospective effect and therefore cannot be applied to transactions predating the amendment's effective date of November 1, 2016. The transaction in question occurred on December 14, 2011. Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on a Single Bench decision of the Madras High Court in K. Nagarajan Vs. Adjudication Authority, arguing that challenges to attachment orders at an initial stage should be relegated to the adjudicating authority. They also implicitly argued for the applicability of the amended provisions to the transaction in question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(9)(A),Section 2(9)(C),Section 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

d^ HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT The HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.14695, 11680, 11681,13150, 13156, 13157, 13190,',13769, 13771, 13787, 13804, 13809, 13822, 13823, 14703, 14711, 14713, 14724, 17758, 17761, 17766, 177 69, 1777 0, 1777 2, 1777 3, 17 77 5, 17 7 80, 17 7 82, 20469, 20 47 1, 20 47 3, 20 47 6, 20 482, 20 490, 20 492, 2049 9, 20 50 3, 20 s23, 23342, 23343, 233s1, 23360 AN D 23537 ot 2021 . Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-l-30'1/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax,. (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3'o Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500 004. 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500 004. 3. Bokka Ramakrishna, H.No.1-120/1 , Near Peddintilam Temple, lVulalanka Village, Kalidindi lVandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P!,.t Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008. 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COIV/F/1 712020- 21t1031866401(1) dt.291)312021 issued by the '1 St respondent as being arbitrary, 1 WP NO: 14695 OF 2021

1 illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Between: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3'o Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500 004. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Approving Authority) (Benami - Trinsactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500 004. 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1,2 & 5 1. M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, D.No.B-1-301/86-87, Plot No'101 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008' ....RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER 2. Bokka Ramakrishna, H.No.1-120/1 , Near Peddintilam Temple, lt/ulalanka Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008. .,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim ordei dated 30/06/2021 passed in l.A No 1 of 2021 in W.P. No 14695 of 2021 in the interest of justice. AND Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1,2&5: SRI' T. SURYAKARAN REDDY' ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No.ITBA/COMlFl17l2O2O-2111031866401(1), dt.2910312021 passed by the '1 st respondent. lA NO: 2 OF 2021

-) WPNO: 11680 OF 2021 Betwee n: AND !!ex_up_ Flteds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-30.1/86_87, ptot No.1 0 1 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad_500 00g ...PETITIONER 1 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Alayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aiyakar Ehavan, ddsheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 Shaik Rahantulla, H.No.2-87, Mulalanka, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pfi Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency. Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi 2 3 4 5 Petition under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/I 7l2O2O- 2111031929736 (1)dt.30/03/2021 issued by the 1 respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violatlve of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/CON/lFl17t2O2O-2111031929736 (1), dt.30/03/2021 passed by the '1st respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2021

l Betwee n: Between: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome lq, (lnitiatinS Officer) Benami ' i;;-"*;ii";s'Piohibition Unit' Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan' Basheerbagh, HYderabad- 50004 . ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT-1 The Joint commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami . i;;;;;;ii";; Ptorrioition U nit), 3rd Floor,'Abvakar Bhavan' Basheerbash' Hyderabad- 50004 2 AND 1. M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, #8-1-301/86-87,-Plot No'101' Saipriya Residency' Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 ....RESPONDENT^/VRIT PETITIONER 2.ShaikRahantulla,H.No.2-BT,Mulalanka'KalidindiMandal'Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P\d Ltd, D No' 48-1^9-4' Samatha Residency' -' RimacnanOra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 4. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue))' North Block' New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS PetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit filed in support bf the p"i'tion, ine Hign Court may -be pleased to vacate the interim order iit"o zeto+izo21 passed in l.A No I o f 2021 in w.P. No 11680t2021 in the interest of justice ' Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y SREENIVASA REDDY ...PETITIONER/RESPONDNET 2 NexusFeedsLtd,(RepresentedbyitsDirector)DNo8-'1-301/86-87'Plot r.]o.itir, Sripiiva iieiioejn"v, lirsnmi Nagar Colonv, Hvderabad-S0O 008 ...PETITIONER lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1,2&5: SRI' T' SURYAKARAN REDDY' ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 11681 OF 2021

5 1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Arumilli Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana , H.No. 4-77-2. [,4uialanka Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P!.t Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)). North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances - stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA /COM lF11712020- 2111031881168 (1) dt.29.03.2021 issued by the l"trespondent as being arbitrary. illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COIt/lFl17l2O2O-2111031881168 (1), dt.29.03.2021 passed by the 1st respondent. Between: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 PETITIONERYRESPONDENT-1 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 AND lA NO: 1 OF 2021 lA NO: 2 OF 2021 ..,PETITIONERYRESPONDNET 2

6 AND '1 . Ir//s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, #8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 ....RESPONDENT^//RIT PETITIONER 2. Arumilli Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, H.No 4-77-2. lr4ulalanka Village, Kalidindi [\,4andal, Krishna District. Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 4. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled 2910412021 passed in LA. No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.11681 12021 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y SREENIVASA REDDY c o u n se I f o r th e Re s p o " o 1$ JrlS Ji'?[3 -Ti,E RXII[itEil^11?3I; " SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 13150 OF 2021 Betwee n: AND Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.1 01, Saipriya neiiOency, Lakshnii Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-S00 008 ...PETITIONER 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan' Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Arshat Unnisa Begum , HIG-72, APHB Colony, Bhimavaram, W.G. District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008

1 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1712020- 2'1l1031868303(1) dt.2910312021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COIt/|F11712020-2111031868303(1), dt.29lo3l2o21 passed by the l"trespondent Betwee n: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. ,1,2 & 5 AND 1 M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.10'1 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 RESPONDENT^//RIT PETITIONER 2. Arshat Unnisa Begum,HlG-72, APHB Colony, Bhimavaram, W.G. District, Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-1S-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2021 lA NO: 2 OF 2021

I Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim ordei dated 11lOOt2O21 passed in l.A No 1 oi 2021 in W.P. No '13150 of 2021 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y SREENIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5: SRl. T' SURYAKARAN REDDY' SRIb'-?'J:!Ifl[f llEfifi: OF INDIA ASSISTED ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 't3 156 0F 2021 Betwee n: AND NexusFeedsLtd,,(RepresentedbyrtsDirector)DNo'8-1-301/86-87'Plot iti;.i&, Siipiivu nbdioehcy, Lakshml Nagar Colonv, Hvderabad-S00 008 ...PETITIONER l.TheAssistantCommissioneroflncomeTax,(lnitiatingOfficer)Benami fransjitions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan' Basheerbagh, HYderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Comrhissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami , - Traoiactions prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3.TamanampudiGeethaParvathi'Aravalli,AttilliMandal,WestGodavari District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency' Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block' New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 21l1O31BB7sT0(i) dt.r9l03/2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being,arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same.

() Petition under sectlon 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No.lrBA/coMlFl17l2o2o-2111031ss7b70(ii, dt.2910312021 passed by the 1st respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: AND 1 2 3 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating OfficeQ Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1, 2 & 5 1 M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd,, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plo,t No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 ....RESPONDENT^/VRIT PETITIONER 2. Tamanampudi Geetha Parvathi, Aravalli, Attilli Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P!.t Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 1110612021 passed in l.A No 1 of 2021 in W.P. No '13'1 56 of 2021 in the interest of justice . Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5i SRl. T. .SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL

10 WP NO: 13157 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87' Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi NagarColony, Hyderabad-SO0 008 ...PETITIONER AND '1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer), Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority), (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Donga Srinivasa Rao, H.No- 4-74, Mula Lanka Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pfi Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1712020- 21l1031809097(1) dt. 26/03/2021 issued by the ',lst respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. lA NO: 1 oF 2021 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111031809097(1), dt.2610312021 passed by the lst respondent. IANO: 2OF2 21 Between: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer)' Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004

I1 2. The Joint Commissioner oJ lnco-me_Tax, (Approving Authority), (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor,'Abyakar Shavr;, Ei;;i;eiOigf,, Hyderabad- 50004 S !nigl-, of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Btock, New Delhi ,..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1,2 & 5 ...PETITIONER 1 2 ltlg ^\ellls. Feeds Ltd, (Represented by irs Director) D.No.8-1_301/86_87, Plot No.'10'1 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar C6lony, Hyderabad_500 ..... RESPONDENTA/VRtT pET|TtONER Donga S_linivasa Rao, H.No- 4-74, Mula Lanka Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh " M/s. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, DNo-.-48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 1110612021 passed in l.A No 1 of 2021 in w.p. No Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y SlRl REDDy Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5:SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL AND 1 2 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Nayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aiyakar 6havan, EidsneerOagn, Hyderabad- 50004 WP NO: 13190 OF 2021 Between: M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, D.No.B-1-30'1/86-87, ptot No.101. Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 AND

2 3. Pilli Trimurtulu, 2-102 Mulaupparagudem, Kalidindi Mandal. Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4- Nakshatra Feeds lndia P\4 Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4. Samatha Residency, Rambchandra Nagar. Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block' New Delhi ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 21t1031BO7gi2(1) dt.i6lo3l2o21 issued by the 1st respondent as being-arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111031807912(1), dl.26io3l2o21 passed by the l"trespondent. Betwee n: AND 'l.TheAssistantCommissioneroflncomeTax,(lnitiatingOfficer)Benami Transictions Prohibition Unit' Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan' Basheerbagh, HYderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami . - Trinsactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor' Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh' Hyderabad- 50004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block' New Delhi 1 ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1,2 & 5 M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, D.No.B-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101 ' Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 ....RESPONDENT NO. 1, 2 & 5 2. Pilli Trimurt ulu, #2-102 Mulaupparagudem, Kalidindi Mandal' Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh lA NO: 2 OF 2021

l3 3. Nakshatra Feeds rndia pvt Ltd, D.No. 4g-1g-4. samatha Residencv Ramachandra Nagar. Vijayawada_ 520 0OB 'vvivvirvr' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, Ihe Higr, court may ou pr"rrla to vacate the rnterim order dated 14r06t2021 passed in r.A No r ot zozr in w.p. ruo 13190 of 2021 in the interest ofjustice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner;SRl. y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDy, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 13769 0F 2021 Between: AND Nexus Feeds Ltd. (Reoresented by.its Director) D. No.8_1_30 i /86_87, plot No.101 , saipriya Reiioency, ljiJrrnii Gg; C;[;y, jryoeiaoao-_sdri oo8 "-' 1. The Assistant commissioner of rncome Tax, (rnitiating officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unrt, }{yderabad 3rd'Ftoor, nlaVafii 6h*an, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lnco-me-Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Ftoor,'Abyakar 6f,ari", fiddf*erU"gL, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Balusu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, H.No.17-9-3g, Motupalli Street, Bhimavaram, West Godavari Distiict, Andhra pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P\i( Ltd, D.N_o.48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 S lnigl of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High - cJurt may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of wiit ot mandamus declaring the impugned order No. lrBA/coM/F/i 7l2o2o- 2111031888384(1) dt.29103/2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority 6f law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. C

1,1 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No. ITBA/COMtFl1712020-2111031888384(1)' d1.2glo3t2o21 passed by the 1st respondent IA NO:1 OF 2021 IANO:2 OF 2021 Between: AND l.TheAssistantCommissioneroflncomeTax,(lnitiatingofficer)Benami fiantactioni Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan' Basheerbagh, HYderabad- 50004 2. The Joint commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami , TransactionsProhibitionUnit),3rdFloor,AayakarBhavan'Easneeroagn' Hyderabad- 50004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block' New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1, 2 & 5 M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director).D No 8-1-301/86-87' iii""i N;i01, sieiivi irbsi<jencv, Lakshmi Nasar colonv, Hvderabad-So0 008 ..,.RESPONDENT/VVRIT PETITIONER BalusuVeeraVenkataSatyanarayana'HNo17-9-38,MotupalliStreet' Bhi.auarrm, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency' Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peiition, ine High Court may be ple-a1ed to vacatetheinterimorderdated221061202lpassedinl.A.No-1of2021inW.P.No. 13769 of 2021 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SREENIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRI' T' SURYAKARAN REDDY' iiii!3il[''+ti{=:l=El}:"' ND A ASs srED 1 2 3

l5 WP NO: 13771 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-SOO 008 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax (lnitiating Officer), Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority), (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Bokka Vinayaka, H.No- 10-45/1 , li/ulalanka, Kalidindi lr/andal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 2111031923627(1) dt. 30/03/2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbrtrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111031923627(1), dt.3010312021 passed by the 1st respondent. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax (lnitiating Officer), Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 lA NO: 1 OF 2021

l6 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority), (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONERSi RESPONDENT NO. 1,2 & 5 AND Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled 22t0612021 passed in lA No 1 of 2021 in w.P No 13771 of 2021 in the interest of justice and pass 2. Shri Bokka Vinayaka, H.No- 10-4511, Mulalanka, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 3. M/s. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 4. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi .,.RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y SREENIVASA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1,2&51SRI' T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 13787 OF 2021 Between: 1. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D No B-1-301/86-87' Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi NagarColony, Hyderabad-500 008 ....RESPONDENT/wRIT PETITIONER Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-l-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony' Hyderabad-500 008 ,..PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004

17 2. The Joint Commissioner, of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd FIoor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Velagala Satyanarayana Reddy, D.No.5-82 tvlain Road, Aravalli Village, Attilli Mandal, West Godavari District. Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar. Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1712020- 2111031886076(1) d1.2910312021 issued by the '1 st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111031886076(1), dt.2glo3l2o21 passed by the 1st respondent Between: 1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner, of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1, 2 & 5 AND 1. M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 .....RESPONDENT^/VRIT PETITIONER lA NO: 1 OF 2021 lA NO: 2 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled 2210612021 passed in l.A No 1 ol 2021 in W.P No 13787 of 2021 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 13804 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi NagarColony, Hyderabad-SOO 008 ...PETITIONER t8 AND '1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Vadlamudi William Keri, H.No .4-2-119 Lankapeta, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P\,t Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ..,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITSA/CON//F/1 712020- 2111031885703(1)dt.29.03.2021 issued by the lst respondent as being arbitrary, 2. Velagala Satyanarayana Reddy, D.No.5-82 Main Road, Aravalli Village, Attilli IVandal, West Godavari District. Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar. Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY

l9 illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No.lTBA/CON/lFt17l202O-2111 031885703(1), d|.29.03.2021 passed by the pt respondent. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: 1 2 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1,2 & 5 AND ...RESPONDENTSiRESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled 2210612021 passed in l.A No 1 of 2021 in W.P. No '1 3804 of 2021 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1,2&5i SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL lA NO: 1 OF 2021 1. M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D. No.B-1-30'1/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-SOO 008 ....RESPONDENT^/VRIT PETITIONER 2. Vadlamudi William Keri, H.No .4-2-119 Lankapeta, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 3, Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008

20 WP NO: 13809 OF 2021 Between: AND ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 2111031886852(1) d1.2910312021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary' illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COMlEl17l2O20'2111031886852 (1), dt.29/03/2021 passed by the 1't respondent. Betwee n: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-SOO 008 ...PETITIONER 1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Chellanki Venkata Ramana, H.No. 2-2D, Satyanarayana Nagar' Malalanka, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi lA NO: 2 OF 2021

The Joint Commissioner of lncome_Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions prohibition Unit), 3rd Hooi,'nSiaiai Enir"", riidhe"roabr,, Hyderabad- 50004 Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1,2 & 5 AND 1. M/s. Nexus Feeds.Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D. No.B_1_30.1/g6_g7, Plo-t No. 1 0 1, Sai priya Resiciency, Lakstimi t trgii C6f ;V,-X-Va"i"Uri'_sOO 008 .... RESpONDENTA/VRtT pETtTtONER 2. Shri Chellanki Venkata Ramana, H.No.2_2D, Satvanaravana Naoar Malalanka, Kalidindi [vlandal, Krishna District, Ancitrr;-il;A;; 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia pvt Ltd, D.No. 48_19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada_ 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine Higrr court may oe pteiiea to vacate the interim order dared 2210612021 passed in lA No 1 of '2021 in w.p No 13809 of 2021 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. y. SlRl REDDy 21 WP NO: 13822 OF 2021 Between: AND Nexu^s. F^eeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B_.1_301/86_87. ptot No.101, Saipriya Residency. Lakshtni Nagar Colony. Hyderabad_500 008 ...PETITIONER The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd'FIoor, Aiayakar Anavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 The Joint Commissioner of lnco-me_Tax., (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Adyakar Biavan, e6iheerOigh, Hyderabad- 50004 1 2 Counsel for the Respondent Nos. ,1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST, SOLICITOR GENERAL

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court -may be pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit,orderordirectioninnatureofwritof mandamusdeclaringtheimpugnedorderNo.lTBA/CotM/F/1712020- )|iogleaooe6(1) dt.r9l03/2021 issuLd by the 1st respondent as being-arbitrary' ittegat, viotative'of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without.jurisdiction, and set aside the same. )2 3. Karri Saradha, H.No.3-12 Sivalavam Street. Aravalli Village. Attilli Mandal West Godavari District. Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P\,t Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency' Ramachandra Nagar. Vijavawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)) North Block' New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Betwee n: ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1' 2 & 5 AND Petition_ under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to,stay ihe operation of the impugned Order No.ITBA/COMlFt17t2O20-21 1031886636(1), dt.2gto3t2o21 passed by the 1st respondent lA NO: 2 OF 2021 l.TheAssistantcommissioneroflncomeTaxand4others,(lnitiatingofficer) a"nu*ifirnsactions pronioition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, HYderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax., (Approvinq Authority) (Benami Transactions prohibition U'"ii)l eiJf]"";, hifar<ar Blhavan, Bi'sheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)) North Block' New Delhi 1 M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its- Director).D No'B-1-301/86-87' i;r.'il.r".iol, Siiprivj Rbsi<iency. Lakshtni Nagar Colony Hyderabad-So0 008 ....RESPONDENT^/VRIT PETITIONER Smt. Karri Saradha, H.No.3-12 Sivalavam street. Aravalli Village. Attilli Mandal. West Godavari District. Andhra Pradesh a

3 M/s. Nakshatra Feeds.rndia pvtLtd, D.No.4g-'r9-4, samatha Residency. Ramachandra Nagar. VijavawaOa_ 6Zt OO'A ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the puiiilon ir,L iigr' court may oe pr""r"i to vacate the interim order dated 22-06-2021 passed in t.R.wo. 1 of 2021 , w.F.r.r". 13822 of 2021 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & S: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, sRl b'_?.J:!]fl [ ^" EIERilt o F I N D rA AS s I s rE D ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 1 823 0F 2021 3 Between: AND Nexu-s F_eeds Ltd. (Represented by its Director) D. No.B-1_30.1/86_87, plot No. 1 01, Saipriya Residency, Lakshm'i N;g; C;i;;y,lvoeiaoa+soti o"Cid' "' ...PETITIONER 1 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiatino Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unrt, Hyderabao irii'Fioor, AaVafai 6fravan,' Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome_Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd ntooi,'eliatii Ehrurn, ftddf,eernagn, Hyderabad- 50004 Bo-kka Srinivasa Rao, D.No..9-6, SN Nagar, Bhaskar rao pet, Mulalanka Village, Kalidindi lrrlandat, Krishna Oistrici, AnOrrra Fiaaesrr Nakshatra Feeds lndia pvt Ltd, p N_o._aQ-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- S2O 008 ' -- -" Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi 2 3 4 q ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 ot the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith the High'cJrrt ,rv o" pleased to issue an appropnate writ, order or direction in nature of wiit ot T_1!9?r11 declaring the impugned Order No. tTBA/COM/F/1 7t2O2O- 2111031808881(1) dt 261031202'1 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, legal, violative of principres of naturar juitice and wiihout authority o"r taw ano without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. 23

21 .,.PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1, 2 & 5 Betwee n: 1 2 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax' (lnitiating Officer) Benami ii;*J"iid.l p-ronioiiibn unit, HyOeranad 3rd Floor. Aayakar Bhavan, Baiheerbagh, HYderabad- 50004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax' (Approving.Authority) (Benami ' i;;"#;ii,;; Pio[iuition u "ii)l 6io rl""i''Aivaxar Bhavan' Basheerbash' Hyderabad- 50004 Unionoflndia'(RepresentedbySecretary(Revenue))'NorthBlock'New Delhi 3 AND 1. Nexus Feeds Ltd (Represented by its.Director) D No B-1-301/86-87' Plot No.101 , saipriva RUJid";;;v' ;itr*i'Nigu' Colonv' Hvderabad-S0o 008 ....RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER 2. Bokka Srinivasa Rao, D No' 9-6' S]'l Nagal Bhaskar rao pet' Mulalanka - Vili;;;, xJiioinoi r'Llio?r,.kiiinn' District' Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P!'t Ltd, D N-o.^48^i^9-4' Samatha Residency' " fiiiri"rijnora Nagar, Vijavawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in suppJrt "i'tf-.," p"[itioi.r, in" ,Hion Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order azi.i iloaiiozl passed ln-t.R no 1 of 2021 in w.P. No 13823 of 2021 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl' Y SREENIVASA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 1,2 & 5:SRL-f' SURYAKARAN REDDY' n6oi.sor-rcrroR GENERAL oF INDIA AsslsrED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA' ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL lA NO: 1 OF 2021 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition.g:.!tp.| Court may be pleased to^ staY the operation ot tne impugnJo^'oroli No rrBAtcoMtFllTt2o2o-2111031808881(1), d1.26i03t2021 passed by the 1"'respondent' lA NO: 2 OF 2021

25 WP NO: 14703 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-87. Plot No.101. Saipriya Residency. lakshmi Nagar Colony. Hyderabad-s00 008 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami transactions Prohibition unit. Hyderabad 3rd Floor. Aayakar bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax., (Approving Authority (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit). 3rd Floor. Aayakar Bhavan. Basheerhagh. Hyderabad- 50004 3. Dupum Subhramanyam, M1G-1 . Housing Board. Tanuku. West Godavari Dist. 534202. Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No.48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar. Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndla, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)). North Block. New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. l TBA/COlVl/F/1712020- 2111031934700(1) dt.30/03/2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111031932639(1), dt.3010312021 passed by the lst respondent. Betwee n: '1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami transactions Prohibition unit. Hyderabad 3rd Floor. Aayakar bhavan Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 lA NO: 1 OF 2021 lA NO:2 OF 2021

The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax ' (Approvino Authoritv (Benami Tra nsaction s Prohibition u'tiiiSiJrit"i Adyaka r Blhavan Basheerhagh' Hyderabad- 50004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)) North Block New 26 ...PETITIONERAS/RESPONDENT NO. 1, 2 & 5 .,,PETITIONER Delhi AND It4/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director),D No B-1-301/86-87' Plot No. 1 01. Saipriva nutiS""nii' r"Jtri'i-r'lZg" Colony Hyderabad-S0o 008 .,...RESPONDENT^/vRIT PETITIONER Duoum Subhramanyam, M1G-l Housing Board Tanuku West Godavari oidi. sa+zoz. Andhra Pradesh Ir,4/s. Nakshatra Feeds India P\rt Ltd' DNo-^48-'19-4' Samatha Residency' il;;;;J;Nasar. Viiayawada- 520 oog ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 2 Betwee n: AND Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D No'8-1-301/86-87' Plot No. 1 0 1, Saipriya ne.ioencv,iu-xlhiii NigJr Colonv Hyderabad-SOo 008 1 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax' (lnitiatin^g Officer) Benami ii!",1!iJii,i"!'p-ro r, iui[io n u n it, Hvo "ii u'd 3 rd F loo r' Aava ka r B hava n' eihl-edcagh, HYderabad- 50004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax' (Approving,Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition u'ii)l 5iJrl"ti''niyarar 6havan' Basheerbagh' Hyderabad- 50004 petition under section 151 cpc praying that. in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppJtt "i tn" p"fitroi.r irt". nion Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order a"'t"i'oii7io2'1 passed in-l A No 1 ol 2021 in w P No t +ZOe ot 2021 in the interest of iustice' Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl' Y' SlRl REDDY counserf ortheRespo".itJi.3"'ii"fr 3r'51fu RXmift Bil^11?3I;, SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO:14711 OF 2021

21 3. Gollamandula Sundar Kumar, D.No.1B-1-6/4, Stationpeta, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 2111031932639(1)d1.30.03.2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM lF11712020-2111031934700(1 ), dt.30.03.2021 passed by the 1"t respondent. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: I . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-. 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1,2 & 5 AND '1 . M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-S0O 008 .,.RESPONDNET/WRIT PETITIONER 2. Gollamandula Sundar Kumar, D.No.1 8-1 -6lA, Stationpeta, Narsapuram, West Godavari District. Andhra Pradesh lA NO: 1 OF 2021

28 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 01-07-2021 passed in l.A.No. 1 of 2021 in W.P.No. 14711 of 2021 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5: SRI' T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 14713 OF 2021 Betwee n: Nexus'Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D. No.B-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-SO0 008 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibitiori Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Bandi Rajesh, H.No.15-3-21 , Raj Dhavan Apartment, Near Shivananda Park, Kovvur, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block' New Delhi Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/I 712020' 2111031930337(1) dl.3olo3l2021 issued by the 1"r respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. .,.RESPONDENTS

29 lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020-21 /1 031930337(1), dt.3010312021 passed by the 1st respondent. Betwee n: ..,PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1, 2 & 3 AND 1. IV/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its DirectoQ D.No.B-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-S0O 008 ...RESPONDENTSiRESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled 0110712021 passed in l.A No I of 2021 in W.P. No 14713 of 2021 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL lA NO: 2 OF 2021 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...,RESPONDENTA/VRIT PETITIONER 2. Bandi Rajesh, H.No.15-3-21, Raj Dhavan Apartment, Near Shivananda Park, Kowur, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 3. lvl/s. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No.4B-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008

l0 WP NO: 14724 OF 2021 Betwee n: AND Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D. No.8-1-301/86-87' Plot No.101. Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 ...PETITIONER 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Bontu Sarveswara Rao, H.No.4-313. t\/ulalanka Village. Kalidindi Mandal' Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pfi Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency' Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)). North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COtvllFl1712020-2111031888058(1), dt.2910312021 passed by the '1 st respondent and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Betwee n: 1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan' Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 7l2O2O- 2111031888058(1) dt.29103t2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same.

31 ...PETITIONER/RESPONOENT NO. 1, 2 & 5 AND 1. M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-30'1/86-87, Plot No.101. Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 RESPONDNET^/VRIT PETITIONER 2. Bontu Sarveswara Rao, H.No.4-313. Mulalanka Village. Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency. Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 01-07-2021 passed in LA.No. 1 of 2021 in W.P.No. 14724 of 2021 in the interest ofjustice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST, SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 17758 OF 2021 Between: 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 50004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)). North Block, New Delhi Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-S0O 008 by rep by Goluguri Rama Krishna Reddy ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax and 4 others, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan' Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

-rl 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority), (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Madabattula Srinivas, D.No.1-77lA, Kommaru Village, Ganapavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P!'t Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 21t1031919376(1) d1.30.03.2021 issued by the ',1 st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No. ITBA/COMlFl17l202O-2111031919376(1), dt.30.03.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and pass Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1,2&5: SRI' T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y' SlRl REDDY WP NO:17761 OF 2021 Betwee n: AND Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-87' Plot No.101, Saipriya Reiidency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-S00 008 ...PETITiONER 1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

JJ 2 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bisheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 Peddireddy Jagannadha Rao, D.No.2-238, Sai Mahal, Near Ramalayam, Kovvur, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh Nakshatra Feeds India P\4 Ltd,, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi 4 5 .,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111 031920990(1), dl 30/0312021 passed by the '1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY WP NO: 17766 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-SOO 008 ...PETITIONER AND '1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax (lnitiating Officer), Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of wrlt of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. |TBA/COM/F/1 712020- 2111031920990(1) dt.30/03/2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL

34 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority), (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan' Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Bontu Srinivasa Rao, Behind Peddilintamma Temple, Mulalanka, Kalidindi t\/andal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS ' Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No' ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 2111031934124(1) dt. 30.03.2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111031934124(1), dt. 30.03.2021 passed by the '1st respondent lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Betwee n: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax (lnitiating Officer), Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority), (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block' New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1,2 & 5 AND 1. M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-S0O 008 ...RESPONDNETA/VRIT PETITIONER

Bontu Srinivasa Rao, Behind Peddilintamma Temple, I\rlulalanka, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh I\,4/s. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, DNo. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 0210812021 passed in l.A No 1 of 2021 in w.p No 17766 of 2021 in the rnterest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & S: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDy, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO:17769.OF 2021 Between: 2 3 AND Nexu-s F_eeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, ptot No.1 01 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-SO0 008 ...PETITIONER The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Eiasheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 9-ummala Srinivasa Rao, D.No.2-125, S Kodepadu Village, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh Nakshatra Feeds lndia P!.t Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 Unron of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi 1 2 3 4 5 ,..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 7l2O2O- 2111031920432(1) dt.301031202'1 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, 35

i6 illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. IANO:1 OF 2021 IA NO: 2 0F 2021 Between: Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No. ITBA/COMtFl1712020-2111031920432(1), dt.3}lO3t2O21 passed by the 1st respondent and pass l.TheAssistantCommissioneroflncomeTax,(lnitiatingofficer)Benami ' fiarsaJtions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan' Basheerbagh, HYderabad- 500004 2. The Joint commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami . - i;;;;;;iio;i Ftor,inition u nit), erd Flooi,'Abvakar Bhavan' Basheerbash' Hyderabad- 500004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue))' North Block' New Delhi .,.PETITIONERS/RESPONDNET NO. 1'2 & 5 AND tt//s.NexusFeedsLtd'(RepresentedbyitsDirector),D.No.B-1.301/86-87' i;i;i N; iti, S",piiva hbsidencv' Lakshmi Nagar colonv' Hvderabad-Soo 008 ....RESPONDENT^/vRIT PETITIONER GummalaSrinivasaRao,D.No.2-l25,SKodepaduVillage,Ganapavaram frrfinOat, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh Nakshatra Feeds India P!'t Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency' Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may- b^e. gle391d to vacaie tne interim order dated O2tOBl2021 passed in l.A No 1 ot 2021 in W.P No 17769 of 2021 in the interest of justice and pass 1 2 3 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRI' T' SURYAKARAN REDDY' ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI, B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL

31 WP NO: 17770 OF 2021 Between: AND Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-30'1/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-SO0 008 ...PETITIONER '1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, ' Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd FIoor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. lMohammad Abdul Rasheed, H.No.7.14, Kausalya Nilayam, Old Malka.jgiri, Hyderabad, Telangana 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No.48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COtt/|F11712020-2111031921768(1), dt.30.03.2021 passed by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y SlRl REDDY Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewjth, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COtV/F/l 712020- 2111031921768(1) dt.30.03.2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 &5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL

38 Between: NexusFeedsLtd,(RepresentedbyitsDirector)D.No.8-1-301/8-6--8ZPlot No.101, Saipriya Reiiddncy, Lakshmi NagarColony, Hyderabad-500 008 ...PETITIONER WP NO: 17772 OF 2021 AND 1 lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Betwee n: The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar B Basheerbagh, HYderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approvin Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor' Aayakar Hyderabad- 500004 3. Kunuku Naga Krishna, Pekeru Village, lragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P\4 Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamusdeclaringtheimpugnedorderNo.|TBA/CoM/F/1712020. 211103180858 1(1) d1.i6lo3t2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being-arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same Bena m i havan, Authority) (Benami havan, Basheerbagh, s B Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 7l2O2O' 21li031B0B581(1), dt.2610312021 passed by the 1st respondent. 1 2 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating OfficerJ Benami Trjnsictions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Trjnsactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh' Hyderabad- 500004 lA NO: 2 OF 2021

39 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONER/RESPONDNET NO. 1, 2 & 5 AND 1. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad- s00 008 .,..RESPONDENTA/VRIT PETITIONER 2. Kunuku Naga Krishna, Pekeru Village, lragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P!,t Ltd, D.No. 48-'19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavii filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daled 021081202'1 passed in LA No 1 of 2021 in W.P No 17772 of 2021 in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SIRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADOL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI, B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 17773 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-SO0 008 ..PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Kota Durga Bhavani, D.No.3-30, Sivalayam Street, Kasipadu Ganapavaram lt/andal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P!,t Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order No. ITBA/COIV/F/1 7l2O2O- 21t1031g31532(1) dl.3olo3l2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative'of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same' 40 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ..,RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2021 lA NO: 2 OF 2021 ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDNET NO. 1, 2 & 5 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No. ITBAJCOM/F/I 712020' 21i1031931532(1), dt.30/03/2021 passed by the 1st respondent. Between: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, HYderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami .. Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi 1. M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No'8-1-301/86- 47, ptot No.101 , Saipriya Residenby, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 2- Kola Durqa Bhavani, D.No.3-30, Sivalayam Street, Kasipadu Ganapav;ram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No.48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order daledo2lo8t2o21 passed in l.A No 1 oI 2021 in W.P No 17773 of 2021 in the interest of justice AND

4l Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot . No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-50O 008 ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar B Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Mohammad Abdul Rasheed, H.No. 7-14, Kausalya Nilayam, Old Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, Telangana 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No.48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/CON//F/1 712020- 21t1031807559(1) dt.2610312021 issued by the 1"t respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,.the Hlgh Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COIM/F/1 712020- 2111031807559(1), dt.26l03i2021 passed by the 1st respondent. Benami havan, Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRI. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 17775 OF 2021 lA NO: 1 OF 2021

12 lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: ' 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor' Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1, 2 & 5 AND 1. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-87' Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad- 500 008 .....RESPONDENT^/VRIT PETITIONER 2. Mohammad Abdul Rasheed, H.No. 7-14, Kausalya Nilayam, Old Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, Telangana 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P!'t Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 02/08/202'1 passed in l.A No 1 ol 2021 in W.P No 17775 of 2021 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counset for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, tRl'dt-"^'Ji[fl[f ',X=*['t oF rNDrA ASSTSTED ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 17780 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-8-7' Plot No.101 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 ...PETITIONER

13 AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd FIoor, Aayakar Bhavan,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. P. Bujji Babu, H.No.17-3-3, Opp lndian Bank, Backside of HDFC Bank, Police Bomma Centre, Galivari Street, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds India Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances - stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1712020- 2111031808232(1) dt.26.03.2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No.ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111031808232(1), d1.26.O3.2021 passed by the 1st respondent. Between: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1, 2 & 5 lA NO: 1 OF 2021 lA NO: 2 OF 2021

M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd' (Represented by its Director) D No 8-1- 301/86-6;: Pioi"N" iii' S'aipriva Residencv' Lakshmi Nasar , ColonY, HYderabad-500 008 ....RESPONDENT^/vRIT PETITIONER 2.P. Bujli Babu, H'No'17-3-3' O^pq. lndian Bank Backside of HDFC Bank, Police'Eb'*' C"ttre' ddiivari Street' Bhimavaram' Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd' D No 4B-19-4' Samatha Residency' Ramachandra Nagar' Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppJ,t oi tr'" p"iition' t'" Hioh Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order oriliozloeizoit passed iri t'n no 1 of 2021 in W P No 1 7780 of 2021 in the interest of justice' Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl' Y' SlRl REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos' 1,2 & 5ISRL T- SURYAKARAN REDDY' nilii.soircrroR GENERAL oF INDIA AsslsrED AND Between: AND 44 SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL Nexus Feeds Ltd' (Represented by its Director) D No'B-'l-301/86-87' Plot No.1 01, Saipriya nesioencvlliiih'i NJgit Colonv' Hvderabad-SO0 008 ..,PETITIONER 1 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax and 4^others' (lnitiating Officer) B;;;ii;;;;"iionJ ptor,ii,iti".iti'tinii, Hvoutinad 3rd Flooi' Aavakar Bhavan' eiiheerOagh, HYderabad- 500004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax' (Approving.Authority) (Benami ' i;;;il; Pionioition u"ii[ dio rl""i,'Abvakar Bhavan' Basheerbagh' Hyderabad- 500004 Velaoala Prasad Reddy, H'No' 2-7, Block 3' OpP' Bank Street' Aravali Village' iftifriM;;d;l, w.sicoiiavari District, And hra Pradesh Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D N.o.^ Q{^9-+' Samatha Residency' rilri''rrcr,rno* t tagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 2 3 4 WP NO: 17782 OF 2021

5 Hifli " lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Btock, New ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of wiit of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COIV/F/1 7l2O2O_ 2111031888239(1) d1.29.03.2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set asrde the same and pass such further orders in the interest of justice. fA NO: 1 OF 2021 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. YAMMANURU SlRl REDDY 45 Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL .. Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No. lrBA/cotvlFt17l2o2o-2111031s88239(1), dt.29.03.2021 passed by the l st respondent WP NO: 20469 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-87, plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi NagarColony, Hyderabad-S00 008 ...PETITIONER AND '1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Satti Naga Ratnam, Satti Venkat Reddy Poultry Farm 3-218, Aravalli Village, Attilli Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008

'+6 WPNO:20471 OF 2021 Between: AND Benami havan. counserrortheRespo"tillJJ.'rJi,lf, 3-tEL,l;RX["#iiBil^1tr?a'+, SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by.its Director) D No S-1-301/86-87' Plot ir];.ii1 , saipiivi-rieiia.jncy, Lakshnii Nagar colonv, Hvderabad-S0O 008 ...PETITIONER 2 '1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar ts Basheerbagh, HYderabad- 500004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami , Transactions Prohibition Unit). 3rd Floor, Aayakar tshavan' tsasneerDagn' Hyderabad- 500004 Puwala Durga Rao, D.No.7-149, Veerabtradra Nagar, Mandapaka, Tanuku Mandal, Wedt Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi J 4 E ...RESPONDENTS 5.Unionoflndia,(RepresentedbySecretary(Revenue)),NorthBlock'New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, orde-r or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order No. ITBA/COM/F/'1 712020' ZtlOyAaAsZ4(1) dt.rgl13t2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegaj, violative'of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtostay the operation of the impugned order No. ITBA/COlVlFl1712020-2111 031888524(1), d1.29.03.2021 passed by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY

47 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 2'1l1031935634(1) dt.3ol03l202'1 issued by the 1St respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/CON//F/1 712020- 21l'1031S35634 (1), dt.30/03/2021 passed by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRt. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 20473 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Directo0 D.No.8-'1-301/86-87l'Plot No.1 01 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority), (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3nl Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. DVV Satyanarayana, Old Town, Back of Municipal Office, Tanuku, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be lA NO: 1. OF 2021

+8 pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 21t1031882166(1) dt.29l03/2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same and pass such further orders in the interest of justice. lA NO: 'f OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111 031882166(1)' dt.2510312021 passed by the 1st respondent. Betwee n: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority), (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3n1 Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO. 1,2 & 5 AND 1. Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D. No'8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad- 500 008 RESPONDENT^ivRIT PETITIONER 2. DVV Satyanarayana, Old Town, Back of Municipal Office, Tanuku, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 3. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P!'t Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 31/08/202'l passed in l.A No 1 ol 2021 in W P No 20473 oI 2021 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2021

19 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 20476 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd., (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-SOO 008. ..,PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/CO[U/F/1 712020- 21/1031881665(1)dt.29/03/2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. 2. The Joint Commlssioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd FIoor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004. 3. Kollipaka Srinivasa Rao, D.No.16-16, Ganesh Nagar, Road No.15, Komaravaram Tanuku, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia P\i.t. Ltd., D.No.48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008. 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COII/lF11712020-2111031881665(1), dt.2910312021 passed by the 1st respondent.

50 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR C,ENERAL WP NO: 20482 OF 2021 Betwee n: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87' Plot No.101 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 008 ...PETITIONER AND 1 . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad .3rd Floor, Aayakar Shavan' Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan. Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Mamidisetti Prasad, D.No.9-36, Satyanarayana Nagar, Mulalanka, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 2111031933534(1)d1.30.03.2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppod of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No.ITBA/COMlFl17l202O-2111031933534(1), dt.30.03.2021 passed by the 1st respondent.

5l Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDy Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & S: SRt. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 20490 0F 2021 Between:' AND Nexu^s F_eeds Ltd, Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-g7, plot No.101 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Coloriy, Hyderabad-SO0 008 ...PETITIONER The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Eidsheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Satti Radha Rani, Polapur Street, Aravalli Village, Attilli [\,4andal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh - 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. !ni9n of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi 1 .,.RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 7l2O2O- 2111031887793(1)d1.29.03.202'1 tssued by the 15t respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order.No.lTBAlcomlFllT12020-2111031887793(1), Dtd.2910312021 passed by the 1st respondent

52 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. YAMMANURU SlRl REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. '1,2&5: SRI' T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL Between: NexusFeedsLtd,(RepresentedbyitsDirector)DNo'8-1-301/86-87'Plot r.i".rbr, Siipiiv" Ceiioelncy, Lakshmi Nagar colonv, Hyderabad-560 008 .,,PETITIONER AND IA NO: 1 OF 2021 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedtoissueanappropriatewrit,orderordirectioninnatureofwritof mandamus declaring the impugned order No. ITBA/cotM/F/1712020- ziloztszlozl(1) dt.5o/03/2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being-arbitrary, iilegar, ,ioratiue'of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the.petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111031923031(1)' dl.3OlO3t2O21 passed by the 1st respondent. WP NO: 20492 OF 2021 'l.TheAssistantCommissioneroflncomeTax,(lnitiatingOfficer)Benami fia-nsaitbni Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan' Basheerbagh, HYderabad- 500004 2. The Joint commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami , - Trinsactions prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagn, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Bokka Srinu, H.No, 2-75t1-1 , Satyanarayana Nagar, Mulalanka' Kalidindi Itlandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency' Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block' New Delhi

L 53 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY counserrortheRespo"olliJrlSJi,?f, 3-t8irLiX[Hffi il^11?3+, SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 20499 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-l -301/86-87' Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-S00 008 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions' Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd FIoor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Pilli Padma Rao, H. No. 2-18, Satyanarayana Nagar, Mulalanka, Kalidindi I\/andal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-'19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020' 2111031922608(1)dt.30.03.2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same IA NO: 1 OF 202'l Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111031922608(1), dt.30.03.2021 passed by the 1st respondent and pass

5.+ Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY c o u n s e I ro r th e R e s po " o iii J.l; Ji'lft 3 -'31,1; RXIIiit Eil^11?3I;, SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami TransactionS Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami . Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aiyakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 Karri Srinivasa Prakash Reddy, Tethali lndustrial Estate, Tanuku, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pv{ Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020' 2111031806345(t) dt.r6l13l2021 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same lA NO: 1 OF 202'l Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-1-30'1/86--82 Plot No.101, Saipriya Residency. Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-S00 008 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order No.ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111031806345(1), dt.26lo3l2o21 passed by the '1st respondent and pass 1 2 3 4 5 WRIT PETITION NO: 20503 OF 2021

55 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY WP NO:20 23 0F 2021 Betwee n: AND Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-87, Plot No.10'1 , Saipriya Resrdency, Lakshmi NagarColony, Hyderabad-500 008 ...PETITIONER The Assistant Commissioner of income Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 Nagisetty Manikyam, H.No.9-6, Satyanarayana Nagar, Bhaskarraopet, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 1 2 3 4 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Blcick, New Delhi Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. lf BA/COM/F/1 712020- 2111031922237(1) dt.30.03.2021 issued by the '1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To stay the operation of the impugned Order No.lTBA/COlt/lFl17l202O-2111031922237(1), dt.30.03.2021 passed by the 1st respondent Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL ,..RESPONDENTS lA NO: 'l OF 2021

56 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 23342 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D. No.B-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-S0O 008 ...PETITIONER AND ''l . The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Mallina Venkat Rao, H jNo.6-1 1-2, Pulaparthivari Street, Tanuku, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020' 2111031886274(1) di.291}312021 issued by the '1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020-2111031886274(1), d1.2910312021 passed by the 1st respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2021

57 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & S: SRI. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, 3Rl b'-XH:ilfl X^"=.Iffi,t o F I N DrA ASS ISrE D ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 23343 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.B-1-301/86-87, plot No.101, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi NagarColony, Hyderabad-S00 008 .,.PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. f he Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Kotichukkala Peddiraju, Ir/ulalanka Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Prades 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 48-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 2111031808401(1) dt.2610312021 issued by the lst respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same and pass Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COMlFl17l2O20-2111031808401(1) dt.2610312021 passed by the '1st respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2021

58 Counsel for the Respondent Nos, 1,2 &5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WP NO: 23351 OF 2021 Between: Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Represented by its Director) D.No.8-'1-301/86-87, Plot No.1 0 1 , Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-S0O 008 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Shaik lVabhu Subhani, H.No.2-93, Pedalanka, Mulalanka Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 4. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Pvt Ltd, D.No. 4B-19-4, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada- 520 008 5. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order No. ITBA/CONn/F/1712020' 21l1031930899(1)d1,30.03.202'1 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COMlF1712020-21 dt.30.03.202'l passed by the 1't respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY ...RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the petitioner:SRl. y.SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Responde-ntJrlos. 1,2 & S: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY. s3i bi,?H:ilfl [^" 5l;;t or i r,roia niirJ# o ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WPNO: 23360 0F 2021 Between: AND lA NO: 1 oF 2021 Nexus Feeds Ltd, (Reoresented by its Director) D. No.8_1_301/86_87. No 1 01, Saipriya Residency, Lakrhrl rvj'g#'dJiJny,"nyoumord_500 008 Plot ...PETITIONER 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami rransactions prohibition yry! d;;;;;;i 6b,Filit1, e"ri;ii;;,dn";#:,, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad_ SOOOb+ - --- -'v ! '!v\., 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami I;ilEB:?:..85"o[,|ition unii), 5iJFffii,'i5l;i;l'8h,,,n, Basheerbash, 3. Mallina lVlohalatha. H No. 6_1 1._2, pulaparthivari Street, Tanuku, West Godavari District, Andhra pradeih -'erYrrr"Yu" vt 4. Nakshatra Feeds tndia iI ltd, p N_o._+Q__1p_a, Samatha Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada_ S2O OOti " ""' t ts:if,i of tndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Btock, New ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit rirlo ir,uru*itn, the High court mav be pleased to issue an appropriate wrir, order oi'oirection in nature of writ of mandamus decrarino !-" impugned oroe,' ruo. ffBArcor,ilFr17/2020_ 2111o3180s237(1) dt.i6.o3.2ozr issutJov tiul"rt ,".pondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principres of naturar il..,"; ;;; without authority of raw and without jurisdiction. and set aside the same. Petition under Section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition,inJiiJn coyt may be preased to stay the operation of the impuoned order rrro. riea/coil lFh7t2o2o_iitiosi"ai,iiiztrl dt.26.03.2021 passed by the 1st respondent 59

60 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. Y. SlRl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI, B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO: 23537 OF 2021 Betwee n: Satti Parvathi, W/o. Late Shri Satti Veerreddy, R/o.5-73, Aravalli Village, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500 004 The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 Goluguri Venkata Reddy, (Proprietor of Adilakshmi Enterprises), HIG-103-Al, Housing Board Colony, Bhimavaram Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Order No. ITBA/COMlFl1712020- 2111032009944(1) dt.3110312021 issued by the '1 st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and without jurisdiction, and set aside the same Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. ITBA/COM/F/1 712020- 2111032009944(1) dt.3110312021 passed by the 1St respondent. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. '1,2 & 5: SRl. T. SURYAKARAN REDDY, ADDL.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA ASSISTED SRI. B NARASIMHA SARMA, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL The Court made the following: 2 3 4 lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. Y. SlRl REDDY

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTIC E CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.14695 11680 11681 13150 13156 13157 13190 L3769 t377L t3787 13804 13809 L3422 14703 L47LL L47t3 L4724 L7754 t776r 13823 17766 17769 L7770 L7772 t7773 L7775 L7780 t7782 20469 2047t 20473 20476 2o4a2 2o490 20492 20499 20503 20523 23342 23343 23351 23360 AND 23537 of2O2L. COMMON JUDGMENT & ORDER (Per Honble Sri Justice lrjal Bhu],an) Heard Mr.C.V.Narasimham, iearned counsel for the petitioners and N4r.T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned senior counsel and Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Subject matter of all the writ petitions being identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. W.P.No. 1 1680 of 202 1 u,as argued as the lead case and therefore facts narrated in the said writ petition would be referred to for the sake of convenience. 4. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the legality and . validity of the order dated 30.03.202 1 passed by the first re spondent. I 4ND

1 5. Be it stated that order dated 30.03.202 t has been passed by the first respondent under Section 2a g) @l (i) of the Prohibition ol Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. 6. By the aforesaid impugned order, lirst respondent has come to the conclusion that the transaction in question was arranged and executed in a planned manner by M/s.Nexus Feeds Limited, the petitioner, which has been treated as the beneficial owner so that its funds out of unknown sources get parked in the name of the benamidar in the form of shares. Thus it has been held that the consideration has flown through beneficial owner for its immediate or future benefit, direct cr indirect; thereby conclusively falling under Section 2 (9) (A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Consequently, in exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the aforesaid Act read with notification No.S.O.1621 (E) dated 18.05.2OL7 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes r/w Rule 5 of the Prohibition of Benami property Transactions Rules, 2016 and II Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respondent No.1, as the Initiating Officer, passed the order dated 30.03.2021 under Section 2a (al @l (i) of the aforesaid Act continuing the provisional attachment of the

,l properties as mentioned in the said order till such time, order is passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 26 (3) of the Prohibition of Benami property Transactions Act, 198g, further directing that the attached property shali not be transferred, converted, disposed or moved in any manner whatsoever until or unless specifically permitted to do so by the first respondent. 7. Though the impugned order dated 30.03.202t has been assailed on a number of grounds, the hearing was confined to retrospective applicability of the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 to the transactions in question. it is the contention of the petitioner that there can be no retrospectivity of the aforesaid Amendment Act of 2016 and hence the impugned order is ex facie bad in law being without jurisdiction. 8 At the outset, facts as pleaded by the petitioner may be adverted to. 9. Petitioner M/s. Nexus Feeds Limited is a company and is represented by its managing director Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy.

I 10, It is stated that petitioner company had a turnover of Rs.360 crores during the financial year 20l9-202O. Authorised share capital of the petitioner company is Rs.62,33,00,000-00. Entire authorised share capital is paid up. with promoters holding 1,23,93,000 shares with other individuals and body corporates holding the balance shares. 11. During the years 2OlI-2012 and 2O13-2014 petitioner company u,ent for expansion of manufacturing activities and in order to raise capital, had taken loans from various banks besides raising share capital by issuing shares to interested individuals. 12. Petitioner company had also approached the third respondent for investment since he is in aqua farming and purchases aqua feed from the petitioner company. It is stated that third respondent invested an amount of Rs.45 lakhs and \ Ias correspondingly allotted Rs.4,50,000 shares of petitioner company. Respondent No.3 made the above payments through proper banking channel by way ol cheques from his bank account held in Union Bank of lndia.

) 13. Thus, tota.l shares of 4,50,000 were allotted to the third respondent as on 14. 12.2OL1 which is reflected in the returns filed lor the year 201l_2012. There was a search and seizure operation carried the premises of the petitioner company by officials of the 74. Income Tax department on high income tax demand 15.03.2017. Though this led to by way of additions in lresh of the aforesaid Act, whereas petitioner out in assessment order, most of the additions were set aside in appeal. 15. However, folrgwing the above, first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 30.12.2O1g to the third respondent as well as to the petitioner under Secti on 24 (1 ) of the Prohibition of Benami property Transactions Act, 19gg. Third respondent was termed as the prima facie benamidar under Section 2 (10) company and its Managing Director Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy were termed as pnma /acie beneficial owners under section 2 (r2) of the aforesaid Act. Reference was made to the search and seizure operations carried on by the Income Tax department on 15.03.2017 wherefrom, it was stated, certain incriminating materials were found and seized. In this

6 background, proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 were initiated in connection u,ith u,hich statement of third respondent was recorded on 19.ll.2Ol9. First respondent as the Initiating Officer stated that investments made in the property mentioned in the show cause notice is benami transaction u,ithin the meaning of Section 2 (9) (A) of the aforesaid Act, thereby giving rise to the conclusion that third respondent is a benamidar and the property as mentioned is benami property. Thus, third respondent was directed to show cause as to why the entire transaction should not be treated as benami transaction. him as benamidar and petitioner and its directors as beneficial o\\rners. order of provisional attachment under Section 24 (3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (briefly, the 19BB Act', hereinafter) on 31 .12.2019. By the aforesaid order, properties mentioned thereunder were provisionally attached for a period of 90 days from the last date of the month in which the notice under Section 24 (1) of the 1988 Act u,as issued i.e. from 31.12.2019 with the further 16. It may be mentioned that first respondent passed an

7 direction that the attached property should not be transferred, converted, disposed or moved in anv manner whatsoever until or unless specifically permitted to do so by the first respondent. The properties in question are as under: The movable property, being 4,50,000 shares of M/s. Nexus Feeds Limited worth Rs.45,0O,O0O/- allotted in FY 20 I I - 12. 2. Proceeds thereof being corresponding ,,Fixed Asset_ Building" to the tune of equivalent arnount acquired as against the share capital introduced in the books of M/s. Nexus Feeds ii-ited during the F-Y 201 l- 12 so routed through benami transaction. 17. Petitioner submitted reply to the lirst respondent on 17.01.2020. It was pointed out that though petitioner and the directors were not specifically asked to submit reply, being aggrieved persons, they had liled reply to the show cause notice. It was further pointed out that the said reply shouid be treated as an interim reply only as detailed reply would be filed after receipt of documents called for by the petitioner. Though the reply by the petitioner was on various aspects, such as, the notice and provisional attachment order were passed on mere assumptions and presumptions, allegations being baseless, notice being issued with preconceived mind, etc., however, it was specifically urged that the impugned action of the first respondent was on the

8 basis of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 by applying the same retrospectively. it was contended that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ('Amendment Act, 2016', hereinafter) became operative from 01.11.2016. Since the impugned transactions took place in the year 2011, the Amendment Act, 2016 cannot be applied retrospectiveiy to the said transaction. The very foundation lor issuance of the show cause notice and the provisional attachment order being flawed, the same is required to be recalled / set aside. 18. Holrrever, first respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.03.2021. On the question of retrospectivity, first respondent took the stand that by the Amendment Act, 2016 machinery provisions have been introduced only to plug the loopholes in the 1988 Act. Section 24 of the Amendment Act, 2016 is a machinery provision which is intended to supplement the substantive provisions of the 1988 Act. The provisions of the 1988 Act and the Amendment Act, 2016 would have to be harmonized. Otherwise, beneficial owners would continue to enjoy the fruits of i1l-gotten '"vealth and the societv at large u,ouid continue to suffer which would run

9 counter to the very object and purpose of the 19gg Act. Reference has been made to an order d,ated O3.O2.202O passed by the Supreme Court in SLp (C) No.2Z84/2O2O, Union of India Vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom private Limited, whereby operation of the related judgment of the Calcutta High court holding that the 20 16 Amendment of the 1 9gg Act is prospective in nature has been stayed. After discussing the issues raised in the show cause notice and the reply given, first respondent has held that it has clearly come to light that the transaction was arranged and executed in a planned manner by M/s. Nexus Feeds Limited (petitioner), the beneficial o!\,,ner, so that, its funds out of unknown sources gets parked in the name of the benamidar in the form of shares. Thus, it has been held that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the consideration has flown through the beneficial owner for its immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect; thereby conclusively failing within the ambit of Section 2 (9) (Al of the 1988 Act. By the aforesaid order, first respondent has continued with the provisional attachment of the property under Section 2a g) (a) (i) of the 19g8 Act till such time, order is passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 26 (31 of the 19gg Act. First respondent has

l0 further directed that the attached property shall not be transferred, converted, disposed or moved in any manner whatsoever until or unless specifically permitted to do so by him. Though we had extracted the properties attached as per the provisional attachment order, in the impugned order the following properties have been attached : 1. The movable property, being 4,50,000 shares of M/s. Nexus Feeds Limited rvorth Rs.45,00,000/- allotted in FY 2011-12 on 14 .12.201 1 . 2. Proceeds thereof being corresponding "Current & Non- Current Assets" added during the FY 20 I I - 12 in the form of S Assct Head Aclcled ci uring the No Benami Property (Subject matter of Benami Transaction) 1 : Buildings Rs.6,39,45,511/- 6 Rs.72,58,1a3l- Outstanding as on 3r.03.2012 Rs.11,21,97,080/- 2 Plant and machinery Rs.44,80,99,907 / - Rs.4l,7 I ,49,1O21 - 3 Other Fixed A ssets Rs.3,60,545/ - Rs.9,40,167l - -l Loans and Advances Rs. 1,85,24,614/ - Rs.4,52,62,O34 I - 5 Su ndry debtors Rs.3,69,56,390/ - Rs.3,75,99,018/- Rs.72,58, i 43/ as per the Balance Sheet of the Company as on 31/03/2012, to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/ -equivalent to the share capital routed through benami transaction and introduced in the books of M/s. Nexus Feeds Ltd. during the FY 2011-12. 3. Lease rent receivabie from M/s. Nakshatra Feeds lndia Private Limited, Vija),awada @ Rs. 15 lakhs per month towards leasing of Buildings and Plant & Machinery (fixed Assets) as !ear I Other Cu rrent Assets

il 19, Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 20. As already mentioned, though the impugned order has been assailed on various grounds, the hearing was confined to the alleged retrospective application of the Amendment Act, 2Ql6 to the transactions in question which took place in the year 201 1. According to the petitioner, the Amendment Act, 2016 cannot be applied retrospectively; and therefore the very foundation for issuance of show cause notice and provisional attachment order is absent, thereby rendering the impugned order non-esf in the eyes of lau' being rvithout jurisdiction. 2L, This Court by order daled 29.11.2021 in Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2O2l in Writ Petition No.11680 of 2O2l granted interim stay as prayed for by the petitioner subject to the condition that petitioner should not transfer 4,50,000 shares allotted by it in the Financial Year 2Ol l-12 on 14.12.2011 in the name of respondent No.3. I per the registered lease agreement dated 2l108/2019 with Nexu s Feeds Limited.

t2 22. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 have filed common counter- affidavit through Mr. N. Srinivasa Rao, serving as respondent No. I (lnitiating Officer). 23. Answering respondents have narrated the background facts in the follou,ing manner: 23.L A search and seizure operation was conducted by the lncome Ta,x department in the case of the petitioner and its group concerns on i5.03.2017. A copy of the appraisal report was shared with the office of respondent No.1 in view of potential benami transactions. After perusal of the confidential appraisal report, approval under Section 23 of the i 9BB Act, as amended, was obtained from the approving authority for conducting further enquiries. 23.2 As per the report, petitioner-company and its group concerns have generated unaccounted money by inflating the purchase cost of plant and machinery as well as showing bogus expenditures. The unaccounted money thus generated has been used to acquire properties in the name of benamidars and to introduce the same as share capital in the

l3 books of petitioner-company and its group concerns in the name of the benamidars. 23.3 Original PAN cards .of 38 persons, original bank pass books of 18 persons, three digital signature tokens, original voter identity cards of 17 persons who were shareholders of the petitioner-company and its group concerns were lound in one of the office premises of the petitioner-company during the course of search and seizure operations, and consequently seized. 23.4 Further enquiries revealed that respondent No.3 was allotted 4,50,000 shares of petitioner-company worth Rs.45,00,000.00 in the Financial Year 2O11-12 on 14.12.2011. However, respondent No.3 has not filed income tax returns. \ 23,5 Sworn statement of respondent No.3 was recorded under Section 19(1)(b) of the 1988 Act on 19.11.20 19. In the said statement, respondent No.3 denied having invested in shares. He stated that he was acting as the benamidar of the petitioner-company; his share certificates and PAN card details u,ere u,ith the petitioner-company. According to

l{ respondent No.3, he is a mechanic having annual income of 23,6 Therefore, there was reason to believe that the transaction \vas a benami transaction under Section 2(9)(A) read u.ith 2 (9) (C) of the 1988 Act. 23.7 ln this connection, show-cause notice under Section 2+(1) of the 1988 Act u,as issued on 30.12.2019 treating respondent No.3 as prima facie benamidar of the petitioner-company which is the benelicial owner in respect of the subject shares. The shares in question along with the proceeds thereof introduced in the books of the petitioner- company during the Financial Year 2011-12 were treated as benami property 23.8 ln response to the show-cause notice, respondent No.3 submitted reply wherein the statements made on 19.1 1.2019 \\,ere retracted and the shares r.l,ere claimed to have been purchased out of his own funds. Similar replies were received in 21 other cases. On enquiry, lour such persons treated as benamidars denied filing reply. Therefore, l reply of respondent No.3 was considered to be not acceptable Rs.20,O0O/- only.

l5 whereafter bank statements of respondent No.3 were called for and verified. Except the transaction of Rs.45 1akhs, there were no other major transactions 24, Insofar objection of the petitioner to retrospective application of the Amendment Act of 2016 is concerned, it is stated that by the Amendment Act of 2076 only the machinery provisions have been incorporated. Benami transactions were prohibited even under the un-amended 1988 Act. Reference has been made to the decision of the Chattisgarh High Court in Tulsiram vs. A.C.I.T.r wherein it has been held that provisions of the Amendment Act, 2016 can be applied in respect ol transactions carried out prior to 01. I 1.2016. Though the Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. B.R.C. Construction Company Private Limited vs. Union of Indiaz had held that the Amendment Act of 2016 is prospective in nature, operation of the said judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limiteds. Therefore, issue of 1 applicability of the Amendment Act of 2016 retrospectively or otherwise, is pending before the Supreme Court. I lz0lgl ll2 TAXMAN.COM 129 (Chattisgarh) , (20r7) S.C.C. Online Cal. 16142 3 S.L.P. (C) No,2784 of 2O2O, Order dated O3.O2.2O2O

l6 25, Ansr,,'ering respondents have also denied the allegation of the petitioner that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice or that it is without any authority of lau' or that the impugned order has traversed beyond the show-cause notice as attachment of movable and immovable properties is much more than the movable and immovable properties mentioned in the shor.r,-cause notice, etc. 26, It is stated that petitioner has approached the High Court prematurely u,ithout approaching the adjudicating authority. The competent authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 is the adjudicating authority under the 1988 Act. In cases from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana States, the competent authority is at Chennai which had started functioning frorn Ol.O7 .2O2L Reference has been made to decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kailash Assudani vs, Commissioner of Income Tax+ and of the Madras High Court in Dinesh Chand Surana vs. Deputy \ Commissioner of Income Taxs to contend that the a Writ Petition No.lO28O of2017, dated O3.O8.2O17 s Writ Petition Nos.12848, 13160 66 13161 of2018, dated O2.O7.2O18

l7 impugned order is only provisional in nature, and therefore, the Writ Petition filed is premature. 27. In the circumstances, answering respondents seek vacation of the rnterim order dated 29.O4.2021 passed 1n Interlocutory Application No.1 ol 2021. in Writ petition No.11680 of 2021 and resultant dismissal of the Writ petition 24, Petitioner has filed reply-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 denying the contentions advanced by the answering respondents and reiterating the averments made in the Writ Petition. It is stared that statement of respondent No.3 was extracted under duress which was later on retracted by respondent No.3. A retracted statement cannot be the basis for bringing such a senous charge of benami transaction. 29, It is asserted that Section 2 (91 (A) or Section 2 (9) (C) of the 19BB Act u'ere inserted bv way of the Amendment Act of 2016. In the Amendment Act of 2016 itself, it was clearly mentioned that it would be operative w,e.f.01.11.2016. Therefore, on the date of the transaction or commission of the alleged offence, Section 2 (9) (A) or Section 2 (91 (C) were not

t8 \ resPondent Nos'1, 2 and in existence' As such, passing oI an attachment order on the basis of non-existent provision would be wholly illegal and unconstitutional, being vioiative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India' It is asserted that respondents had erred in giving retrospective application to the Amendment Act of 2016. The tegislative intent is explicit in that it was clarified that provisions of the Amendment Act of 2016 would be applicable from O1'11'2016' By the Amendment Act of 2016, definitions of 'benami property' or 'benami transaction' have been enlarged to a iarge extent' and therefore' retrospective application of such amended / enlarged provisions would infringe upon the rights of parties' Finally' it is contended that since the very jurisdiction of respondent No'linissuingtheshow-causenoticeandpassingofthe impugned order dated 30'03'2021 has been questioned' besides violation of the principles of natural justice' the Writ Petition would be maintainable notwithstanding availabiiity of alternative remedy under the statute ' 30. After filing of the reply-affidavit by the petitioner' 5 have filed additional counter- a-ffidavit. In add,ition to justifying issuance of the show-cause

t9 notice and passing of the provisional attachment oider, a detailed analysis of the 1988 Act as well as of the Amendment Act of 2016 has been provided whereafter it is contended that Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 would be applicable upon any benami transaction made prior to 01. 1 1.2016 and Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 would be applicable to those benami transactions made on or after commencement of the Amendment Act of 2016, i.e., 01.1 1.2016. Referring to Section 5 of igBB Act, which was subsequently amended by the Amendment Act of 2016, it is contended that even prior to the amendment, Section 5 provided for acquisition of property by the Government without compensation which is nothing but confiscation of property. Since the am endments were procedural in nature, those would be applicable with retrospective effect. Therefore, the lggg Act, as it stands today, would apply irrespective of the period of purchase of the alleged benami property. Reference has been made to the speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister while introducing the ',. related Bill in the Parliament to contend that the Amendment " Act of 2016 has been enacted to amend the lau, of 19gB lrom the date of inception. ) )

20 31. While asserting that the impugned order has not traversed beyond the show-cause notice, it is stated tliat the same is only provisional in nature; reference has been made to the adjudicating authority under Section 2a(5) of the 1988 Act who shall pass appropriate order under Section 26(3) of the said Act either confirming or revoking the order of provisional attachment. 3l2. Mr.C.V.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, being without jurisdiction. It is based on the Amendment Act of 2016 whereby the transaction entered into by the petitioner with respondent No.3 in the year 2011 has been alleged to be a benami transaction. He submits that there is no dispute that the transaction which is being targeted by respondent No.1 is a transaction which took place in the year 201 1 pertaining to purchase of 4,50,000 shares of the petitioner by respondent No.3. According to him, the same could not have been declared as a benami transaction by applying the Amendment Act, 20i6. 32,1 Learned counsel lor the petitioner has referred to notification dated 25.10.2016 issued bv the Central Board of \

2l Direct Taxes (C.B.D.T.) and submits that as per the said notification which was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Amendment Act, 2016, the Central Government appointed the first day of November,2016 [0 1.11.20i6] as the date on which provisions of the Amendment Act, 2016 had come into force. 32,2 As per Section lZ3 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, an Explanation was inserted in Section 23 of the 19gg Act. But it was made clear that the said Explanation would have effect from 01. i 1.2016 i.e. having retrospective effect. on the other hand, under Section rz4 certain amendments were introduced in Section 24 of the 19Bg Act w.e.f. 01.09.20L9 i.e. prospectively. Similarly, amendments to Sections 26, 30, 46 and 47 of the 1988 Act were given effect to prospectively from 01.09.2019. Again, two new Sections were inserted in the 1988 Act prospectively, vjz,, S4A and 54B w.e.f. 0i .Og.2O1g. From this, he submits that if an Act is to be given effect to from a prior date i.e., retrospectivety it is specifically mentioned or provided in the Act itself. pointing out to \ amendments to Section 23 of the 19gg Act, he submits that Finance (No.2) Act, 20l9 was very clear that the Explanation

22 inserted by way of the amendment would be deemed to have been inserted with effect from a prior date i.e., retrospectively from 01.11.2016. He has also referred to Chapter VI of Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 whereby certain amendments to the 1988 Act were introduced. 32,3 Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a comparative analysis of the provisions of the 19gg Act as well as the Amendment Act, 2016. He has particularly referred to the definition of benami transaction under the 19gg Act as well as under the Amendment Act, 2016. Referring to Section 2(a) of the 1988 Act, he submits that,benami transaction, was defined thereunder to mean, ,, ang transaction tn which property utas transkrred to one person for a consideration paid_ or prouided bg another person,'. 32,4 In contra distinction to the above definition, the Amendment Act of 2016 has completely enlarged the meaning of 'benami transaction'. As a matter of fact, Section 4 of the Amendment Act of 2016 provided that Section 2 of the 19gg Act (in its entirety) stood substituted by the new Section 2 as per Section 4 of the Amendment Act of 20 16.

23 32.5 Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Clauses (A), (B), (C) and (D) of Sub-Section (9) of Section 2 as substituted by the Amendment Act, 2076 and contends that the offence of benami transaction as defined under the 19gg Act was enlarged to such an extent by the Amendment Act of 2076 that various transactions hitherto not falling with the definition of 'benami transaction, under Section 2(a) of the 1988 Act would now fa11 within the delinition ol ,beruami transaction'and would be construed to be a penal offence. 32.6 Referring to the stand taken by respondent No.1 in the show-cause notice as well as in the impugned order which has been further supported by the respondents in the two affidavits, he submits that it is the specific case of respondent No.1 that the transaction entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in the year 2Ol1 would be covered by the definition of 'benami transaction, under Section 2(gl(A) read with Section 2 (9) (C) of the new definition substituted by the Amendment Act of 2016. Sections 2(9)(A) and 2(9)(C) were not in existence when the transaction in question took place. The aforesaid definitions came into the statute book w.e.f. 01.11.2016. Therefore, a transaction which was not an

z1 32.7 In support of his above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a compilation of judgments from which particular reliance have been placed on the follou'ing decisions, viz., Joseph Ishrat vs. Roxy Nishikant Gaikwado, Niharika Jain vs. Union of Indiaz, Union of India vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (3 supra). Mangathai Ammal vs. Rajeshwari8 and R Rajagopal Reddy vs. Padmini Chandrasekharane. 32.a Mr.C.V.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Rajasthan High Court in Niharika Jain (7 supra) and the Calcutta High Court in 6 2017 l3l T.M.I. 1618 (Bombay High Court) 7 20t9 l7l T,M.r. rool 8 2019 (s) T.M.r. 1086 (s.c.) e 199s (2) S.C.C. 630 offence in the year 2011 cannot now be alleged to be an offence by invoking the provisions of Section 2(9)(A) and 2(9)(C) respectively. He further submits that if this is allowed, it would be a clear case of violation of the provisions of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India which says that no person shall be convicted of any offence except lor a violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence.

,< M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (3 supra), have clearly held that the Amendment Act of 2016 is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively to transactions which took place prior to 01.11.2016. .He therefore submits that on this count alone, this Court may set aside and quash the impugned order. However, he submits that in the event Court is not inclined to accept his submissions on the point of retrospectivity, he may be given an opportunity to urge the other grounds of challenge to the impugned order. 33. On the other hand, Mr.T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned senior counsel and Additional Soiicitor Genera] of India, submits that on a comparative analysis of the provisions of the 1988 Act and the Amendment Act of 2016, it is evident that the substitutions brought in by way of the amendment relates back to the original Act, i.e., the i9B8 Act. Therefore, the provisions introduced by the Amendment Act of 20 16 should be read as part of the 1988 Act having effect from the very beginning. \ 33. 1 lnsofar decision of the Calcutta High Court in M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (3 supra) is concerned, operation of the said judgment has been stayed by

26 the Supreme Court. Further, Division Bench of the Rajasthan Judge in Niharika Jain (7 supra), following the above 19BB Act r.r,hich says that provisions of Sections 3, 5, and 8 sha11 come into force at once, and the remaining provisions of the 1988 Act sha1l be deemed to have come into force on and from 19.05.1988. 33.3 Learned Additional Solicitor General has referred Act of 2016. While Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the 1988 Act, r.vhich says that no person shall enter into any benami transaction, has been retained, Sub-Section (2) has been omitted, lr'herealter Sub-Section (3) has been renumbered as Sub-Section (2). As per the renumbered Sub-Section (2), the punishment for entering into benami transaction is imprisonment for a term 'uvhich may extend to three years or with fine or rvith both; this provision aibeit renumbered has been retained. However, a new Sub-Section (3) has been , introduced as per which whoever enters into any benami High Court has stayed the judgment of the learned Single decision of the Supreme Court. 33,2 He has referred to provisions of Section 1(3) of the to Section 3 of the 1988 Act as substituted bv the Amendment

27 transaction on and after commencement of the Amendment Act of 2016 i.e., after 01.11.2016 shall notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Section (2), be punishable in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter VII' As per Sub-section (2) of Section 53 which falls under Chapter VII, whoever is found guilty of the offence of benami transaction shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shatl not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to line which may extend lo 25o/o of the fair market value of the property. 33.4 On the above basis, he would like to emphasize that for the olfence of benami transaction prior to 01' 1l '2016 the penalty provided for in the 1988 Act has been retained. But, for the offence of benami transaction post 01.11.2016, the penalty has been enhanced. Therefore, his submission is that provisions of the Amendment Act of 2016 would be applicable to a transaction which took place prior to 01.11.20i6. But the offence of benami transaction post O 1. 1 1.2016 may invite a stiffer penalty.

28 33.5 Mr.T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, has also drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 5 of the 1988 Act as well as under the Amendment Act of 2016 and submits that, in substance, both the provisions provide for conliscation of property held benami. 33.6 Learned Additional Solicitor General of India submits that only a provisional attachment order has been passed. Matter is at an interlocutory stage. Adjudicating authority is yet to adjudicate and decide as to whether the transaction was a benami transaction; r,r'hether the property in question is a benami property; and whether respondent No.3 is a benamidar of the beneficial owner, i.e., the petitioner, under Section 26 of the Amendment Act of 2016' At the present stage, it is only a complaint' Therefore, at this stage, no interference is ca11ed for' ln any view of the matter, petitioner would have all the right to contest the adjudication proceedings before the adjudicating authority and the right to prefer appeal if aggrieved by any order passed by the adjudicating authority under Sectioo 26; firstly, before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 30 and thereafter to the High Court under Section 49. He therefore submits that the

29 34. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 35. At the outset, we may advert to the provisions of the 19BB Act. Initially, it was called as Benami Transactions (Prohibirion.; Acr, tggB It was enacted by the parliament to prohibit benami transactions and the right to recover property held benami and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto 36. Law Commission was requested by the Central Government to examine the subject on benami transactions in all its ramifications, Law Commission submitted its STth report, To implement the recommendations of the 57t1, report of the Law Commission on benami transactions, president promulgated the Benami Transactions (prohibition of the Right to Recover property) Ordinance, I9gB. While the ',, Urdtnance provided that no suit, claim or action to enforce I any right in respect of any property held benami would lie and Writ Petitions so filed are premature and all the petitioners shouid be relegated to the forum of the adjudicating authority. Consequently, writ petitions shouid be dismissed.

30 no defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami would be aliowed in any suit, claim or action, it however, made two exceptions regarding property held by a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family for the benefit of the coparceners and property held by a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity for the benelit of the other person. Provisions of the Ordinance received a mixed response from the press and the public. A view was expressed that it was a halfhearted measure to tackle the problem effectively and in a comprehensive manner. It was, therefore, felt that a bill to replace the Ordinance should be brought out as a comprehensive 1aw on benami transactions touching ali aspects. Accordingly, Law Commission was requested to examine the subject in all its ramifications. Law Commission submitted its 130th report making certain recommendations. Law Commission recommended as follows: i. Benami transactions should cover all kinds of property; ii. Entering into a benami transacti.on after the commencement of the new 1aw would be declared as an offence \Mith the exception that transactions entered into by the husband or father for the transfer of properties in the name of the wife or unmarried daughter for their benefitl )

C 3l iii. Voluntary orgalizations should be authorized to file complaints agarnst benami transactions and District Judges should be designated as TribunaJs; iv. As both the benamidars and the true owner are equal participants to a criminal transaction, by prohibiting the true owner,s right to recover property held benami as was provided in the Ordinance would be construed as undue enrichment to the benamidar. Therefore, it was suggested that such property should be acquired from the benamidar which provisions should also be applied when a benamidar retransfers the property back tt) the true owner for an apparent or no consideration. v. In addition to Section 82 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, Sections 81 and 94 of that Act should also be omirred. vi, Appointment of an authority like the Charity Commissioner, for supervising private trusts should be provided for. 37, Recommendations of the Law Commission were examined, whereafter the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Bill was introduced in the Parliament. The Bill provided for among other things the following and sought to achieve the resultant objective: (a) entering tr1lo benami transactions after the commencement of the new law wrll be an offence, with an exception for the transfer of properties by the husband, or father for the benefit of the wife or unmarried daughters; (b) all the properttes held benami will be subject to acquisition by such authority, in such manner and after following such procedure, as may be prescribed by rules under the proposed iegislation. As a result of the provisions of the Ordinance and the prohibition ol entering into benami

-tt transactions, the benamidar would be acquiring the rights to the property by the mere lending of his name and without investing any money for the purchase of such propert)'. Accordingly, it is provided that no ,rmount shall be payable for the acquisition of anv property beld benami; (c) Sections 8 I and 94 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, shall also be repealed. 38. Subsequently, the Bill 1ed to enactment of The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. 39. From an analysis ol the above, it is evident that the primary objective of the aforesaid Act was to outlaw benami transactions by making it an offence. Ail properties held benami would be subject to acquisition as the benamidar would be acquiring the rights to the property by mere lending of his name and without investing any money for the purchase of such property. Thus there was no question of payment of any compen sation for the acquisition of any property held benami. 40. Sub-Section (3) of Section (1) provided that whiie provisions of Sections 3, 5 and 8 would come into force at once, the remaining provisions would be deemed to have .' come into force on the 19th day of May, 1988.

t JJ 4O.1 Section 2 (a) defined 'benami transaction'to mean any transaction in which property was transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another person. 42. Section 3 prohibited benami transactions. As per Sub- Section ( 1 ), no person shali enter into any benami transaction. The exception to benami transaction found place in Sub-Section (2). It clarified that the prohibition under Sub- Section (1) would not apply to purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter; and securities held by a depositary. Since benami transaction was declared as an offence with immediate coming into force of the said Act, Sub-Section (3) provided that anyone entering into benami transaction would be punished with imprisonment for a term w,hich may extend to three years or with fine or with both. According to Sub-Section (4), an olfence under Section 3 i.e. offence of benami transaction would be non-cognizable and bailable. barring the exceptions carved out in Sub-Section (2) but also made it a non-cognizable and bailable offence punishable u'ith 43, Thus, Section 3 not only prohibited benami transaction

.t.l imprisonment for a term lvhich may extend to three years or with fine or u,ith both. 44, Section 4 dealt with prohibition of the right to recover property held benami. As per Sub-Section (1), no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shali lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. Sub- Section (2) clarified that no defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami whether against the person in whose name the property is heid or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. However, Sub-Section (3) says that the above prohibition wouid not apply where the person in whose name the property is held is a coparcener in a Hindu undivided family and the property is held for the benefit of the coparceners in the family or where the person in whose name the property is held is a trustee or other person standing in a fiduciary capacity and the property is held for the benefit of

35 another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in such capacity. 45 , Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 made it clear that all properties held benami sha11 be subject to acquisition by such authority, in such manner and after following such procedure as may be prescribed. As per Sub-Section (2), no amount sha11 be payable for the acquisition of any property under Sub-section (1). 46. Section 6 clarified that provisions of the said Act would not affect provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property. Act, 1882 or any law relating to transfer for an illegal purpose. Section 7 provided for repeal ol certain provisions of other Acts. While power to make rules by the Central Government was provided for in Section 8, Section 9 dealt with repeal and savings. 47. In the year 2016 Parliament enacted the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 20 16 (already referred to as 'the Amendment Act of 2016'\, As per the preamble to the Amendment Act of 2016, it is an Act to

-36 further amend the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (already referred to as 'the 1988 Act'). 48. Before we advert to the various provisions of the Amendment Act of 2016, it would be useful to refer to the speech of the Finance Minister ir-r Parliament as to why the Amendment Act ol 2016 lr,as enacted to amend the 1988 Act instead of enacting a new lau'. According to the Finance Minister, the Standing Committee had suggested a nerv Bill to repiace the 1988 Act. 1988 Act, a small Act, provided for acquisition of property. But when there is acquisition of property, compensation has to be paid. That apart, there was no vesting of such acquired property in the Government though it was an acquisition in favour of the Government. But the entire procedure of acquisition was absent. if the Rules provided for such procedure, then it would have been a case of excessive delegation. From 1988 the Rules had not been framed. The 1988 Act also provided for prosecution. Therefore, if the recommendation of the Standing Committee for repealing the 1988 Act and for recreation of a new law in its place u'or-rld have been accepted, it would have amounted to granting immunitv to all people rvho had acquired benami

C properties between 1988 and 2016. This is because the penal provisions of the 1988 Act would have stood repealed. In the event of recreating a new law with such penal provisions, it could only be applied to properties which are benami and entered into after 2016. Since penal laws cannot be made retrospective, the new law would have meant granting immunity to persons carrying out benami transactions during the period from 1988 to 2016, the Amendment Act of 2016 was enacted to amend the 1988 Act. 49, Having noted the above, it may be mentioned that as per Section 3 of the Amendment Act of 20i6, Sub-Section (1) of Section (1) of the 1988 Act stood substituted and the 1988 Act is now called "the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988" (we continue to refer to the same as 'the 1988 Act'). By Section 4 of the Amendment Act of 2016' Section 2 of the principal Act i'e', the 1988 Act is completely substituted. As per the amended Section 2 (8) of the i988 Act, 'benami property' has been defined to mean any property which is the subject matter of a benami transaction and also includes the proceeds from such property. Section 2 (9) 37

3fi defines 'benami transaction'. Since this definition is relevant, the same is extracted hereunder (9) "benarni tran saction" means,- (A) a transaction or an arrangement- (a) rvhere a property is transferred to, or is held by, a person, and the consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by, another person; and (b) the property is held for the immediate or future benefir, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided the consideration, except when the property is held by- (i) a Karta, or a member of a Hindu undivided family, as the case may be" and the property is held for his beneflt or benefit of other members in the family and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of the Hindu undivided family; (ii) a person standing in a liduciary capacity for the benefit of another person towards whom he stands in such capacity and includes a trustee, executor, partner, director of a company, a depository or a participant as an agent of a depository under the Depositories Act, 1996 {22 of 1996) and any other person as may be notified by the Central Government lor this purpose; (iii) any person being an individual in the name of his spouse or in the name of any child of such individual and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of the individual; (iv) any person in the name of his brother or sister or lineal ascendant or descendant, where the names of brother or sister or lineal ascendant or descendant and the individual appear as joint- ou,ners in any document, and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the kno$n sources of the individual; or (B) a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property carried out or made in a lictitious name; or (C) a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property where the owner of the property is nor an,are of, or, denies knowledge of, such orvnership; (D) a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property ra,here the person providing the consideration is not traceable or is fictitious; Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that benami transaction shall not include any transaction involving the ailowing of possession of any property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), if, under any law for the time being in lorce,-

39 (i) consideration for such property has been provided by the person to whom possession of property has been allowed but the person ' who has granted possession thereof continues to hold ownership of such ProPertY; {ii) stamp duty on such transaction or arrangement has been paid; and (iii) the contract has been registered' 50. Thus, we find that there is a qualitative change in the definition of 'benami transaction' from the unamended 1988 Act in the Amendment Act ol 2016. In fact, the scope and ambit of- the expression 'benami transaction' has been made much wider post the amendment. As per Clause (A), a benami transaction would mean a transaction or an arrangement where a property is transferred to or is held by a person and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid by another person; and the property is held for the immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided the consideration, barring the four exceptionscarvedout.Clause(B)saysthatatransactionor an arrangement in respect of a property carried out or made in a fictitious manner would be construed to be a benami transaction.Ciause(C)providesthatabenamitransaction \ would mean a transaction or arr arrangement in respect of a property where the owner of the property is not aware of or denies knowledge of such ownership' Finally as per Clause

{0 (D), a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property where the person providing the consideration is not traceable or is fictitious would also be treated as benami transaction. 51 . As per Section 2 ( 1 0) 'benamidar' has been defined to mean a person or a fictitious person as the case may be, in whose name the benami property is transferred or held and includes a person who lends his name. Likewise, 'beneficial owner' has been defined in Section 2 (12) to mean a person, whether his identity is known or not, for whose benefit the benami property is held by a benamidar. 52. Section 6 of the Amendment Act of 2016 provides for amendment of Section 3 of the principal Act. While Sub- Section (1) ol Section 3 has been retained, Sub-Section (2) is omitted. Upon such omission, Sub-Section (3) of the principal Act has been renumbered as Sub-Section (21 whereafter a new Sub-Section (3) has been inserted which says that u,hoever enters into any benami transaction on and after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act of 2016, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Sub- Section (2), be punishable in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter VII. Whiie we are on the new Sub-

{l Section (3), we may mention that Chapter VII deals with offences and prosecution and includes three sections i.e.53, 54 and 55. Sub-Section (2) of Section 53 provides for a stiffer penalty with imposition of fine not being an optional penalty. Sub-Section (4) of the principal Act has been omitted. 53. For a better appreciation of Section 3 of the 1988 Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 2016, we may reconstruct Section 3 as it stands todav post amendment as under: 3. Prohibition of benami transactions. (1) No person shall enter into any benami transactron (2) Whoever enters into any benami transaction shall be punishable uith imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or w"ith fine or wlth both. (3) Whoever enters into any benami transaction on and after the date of commencement of the Benami Tra:rsactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, sha-ll, notwithstanding anything contarned in Sub-Section (2), be punishable in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter VII. 54. As per Section 7 of the Amendment Act of 2016, Sub- Section (3) of Section 4 of the principal Act has been omitted. Sections 5 and 6 of the principal Act have been substituted in \ entiretv as Der Section 8 of the Amendment Act of 2016. As \ per the substituted Section 5, any property which is the subject matter of benami transaction sha-ll be liable to

12 confiscation by the Central Government. Thus, there is a perceptible shift from Section 5 of the principle Act to the present Section 5 substituted by the Amendment Act of 20 16. While earlier, all properties held benami were liable to acquisition, post amendment those are liable to be confiscated by the Central Government' 55. Under the new Section 6 there is compiete prohibition on retransfer of benami property by a benamidar to the beneficial o\\'ner or an.v other person acting on his behalf 56. Section 9 of the Amendment Act of 2016 provides for insertion of new Chapters lll to VII after Section 6 of the principal Act. On being so substituted, Chapter III deals with authorities including adjudicating authority with Section 18 dealing with jurisdiction of the various authorities; Chapter IV provides for attachment, adjudication and confiscation. Section 24 which is the new provision and which was not there in the 1988 Act finds place in Chapter IV. It provides lor notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction.

C 4-l 57. Sub-Section (1) of Section 24 says that where the Initiating Olficer on rhe basis of material in his possession has reason to believe that any person is a benamidar in respect of a property, he may after recording reasons in writing, issue a notice to the person to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice as to why the property should not be treated as benami property. Sub- Section (2) provides for issuance ol a copy of such notice to the beneficial owner also if his identity is known. As per Sub- Section (3) where the Initiating Officer is of the opinion that the person in possession of the property held benami may alienate the property during the period specified in the notice, he may with the previous approval of the approving authority by order in writing, attach provisionally the property in the manner prescribed for a period not exceeding 90 days from the date of issue of notice under Sub-Section (1). Sub-section (4) provides for continuation of provisional attachment till passing of order by the adjudicating authority under Sub- Section (3) of Section 26 or for revoking the provisional attachment of the property. Further, where there is no provisional attachment under Sub-section (3), the Initiating Officer may, after making such enquiries and calling for such

1d reports or evidence, shal1 within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of notice under Sub-section (l), pass an order provisionally attaching the property with prior approval of the approving authority till passing of order by the adjudicating authority under Sub-Section (3) of Section 26 or ti11 the Initiating Officer may decide not to attach the property as specified in the notice with the prior approval of the approving authority. As per Sub-Section (5), in a case where the Initiating Officer passes an order continuing the provisional attachment of the property, he shall within 15 days from the date of the attachment drau, up the statement of the case and refer it to the adjudicating authority. 58, Section 25 deals with manner of service of notice under Sub-Section (1) of Section 24 59. This brings us to Section 26 providing for adjudication of benami property. Sub-Section (1) provides for issuance of notice to the persons mentioned therein including benamidar, beneficial owner etc., by the adjudicating authority upon receipt of reference under Sub-Section (5) of Section 24. Sub- \ Section (2) says that where the property is held jointly by more than one person, the adjudicating authority shall make

15 al1 endeavours to serve notice to all persons holding the property. Sub-Section (3) says that the adjudicating authority after considering the repiy to the notice issued and after causing such enquiries as deemed fit and taking into account all relevant materials besides providing an opportunity of hearing to the benamidar and any other person ciaiming to be the owner of the property, pass an order holding the property not to be a benami property or holding the property to be a benami property. If the property is held to be benami property, then the attachment order shall be confirmed and if the property is held to be not a benami property' the attachment order is to be revoked' As per Sub-Section (7)' no order under Sub-Section (3) shal1 be passed after expiry of one year from the end of the month in which the reference under Sub-Section (5) of Section 24 was received' 60. Section 27 deals with confiscation and vesting of benami property. Once a property is held to be a benami property, the adjudicating authority shall make an order confiscating such property, but after giving an opportunity of \ being heard to the person concerned Sections 28 and 29

-16 come into play post confiscation as those deal with management and possession of such properties' 61. Chapter V comprising of Sections 30 to 49 provides for Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals against orders of the adjudicating authority. Against any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, an aggrieved party may file appeal to the High Court u'hich is provided in Section 49' 62. Chapter VI provides for Special Courts for trial of offences punishable under the 1988 Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 2016. 63. Chapter VII comprising of Sections 53 to 55 provides for penalty for indulging in benami transaction' Under Sub- Section (2) of Section 53, whoever is found guilty of the offence of benami transactiotr shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which sha1l not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall a-iso be 1iable to fine which may extend to twenty five percent of the fair market value of the Property.

17 64. Chapter VIII comprises of miscellaneous provisions from Sections 56 to 72 dealing with repeal and saving, transitional provisions, rule making power etc. 65. Central Government issued three notifications on 25.1.O.2O16. As per the first notification, the adjudicating authority appointed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 ol the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2OO2 and the Appellate Tribunal established under Section 25 of that Act would discharge the functions of the adjudicating authority and the Appellate Tribunal under the 1988 Act until adjudicating authorities are appointed and Appellate Tribunal is established under the 1988 Act. Further, by the second notification, Central Government appointed O1.l1.2016 as the date on u,hich provisions of the Amendment Act of 2076 would come into force. The third notification provides for the notified income tax authorities exercising powers and performing functions of the adjudicating authority under the 1988 Act 66. In exercise of the porvers conferred by Section 68 of the 1988 Act, as amended, the Central Government has made a .) set of rules called "The Prohibition of Benami Property

18 Transactions Rules, 2O 16" (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules') 67. Having dealt with the 1988 Act, the Amendment Act of 2016 and the related notifications issued by the Central Government, we may now advert to the allegations made by the respondents against the petitioner 68. According to the respondents, the transaction entered into by the petitioner with respondent No'3 on 14'12'2011 is a benami transaction; respondent No'3 being the benamidar and petitioner being the beneficial owner' The show cause notice dated 3o.l2.2olg, provisional order of attachment dated 31.12.2019 and the impugned order dated 30'O3'2021 are quite clear in that the said transaction conclusively fa11s within the ambit of Section 2 (9) (A) of the 1988 Act As a matter of fact, vide the impugned order dated 3O'O3'2O21 ' first respondent concluded that the said transaction was arranged by the petitioner (beneficial owner) so that its funds out of unknown sources gets parked in the name of the benamidar and in the form of shares' Therefore, according to the first respondent, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the consideration has flown through the beneficial owner

{9 for its immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, thereby conclusively falling under Section 2(9)(A) of the lggg Act. In the pleadings it has further been clarified that the transaction in question was a benami transaction under Section 2 (9) (A) read with Section 2 (9) (C) of the 1988 Act. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that according to the first respondent the transaction entered into by the petitioners with third respondent on 14.12.2O11 is a benami transaction within the meaning of Section 2 (9) (A) read with Section 2 (9) (C) of the 1988 Act. 69. We have already noted above as to how the definition of benami transaction as Iinding place in the unamended 19gg Act has undergone a qualitative change post the Amendment Act of 2016. Under Section 2 (al ot the unamended 19gg Act, benami transaction was defined to mean any transaction in which property is transferred to one person lor a consideration paid or provided by another person. Thus, for a transaction to come within the ambit of benami transaction \ under the unamended 1988 Act, it must be a transaction in which property is transferred; such property must be transferred to one person by another person; and such

50 transfer ol property must be for a consideration paid or provided by the transferor. Under the Amendment Act of 2016, the definition of benami transaction has been expanded which lve have already dealt with in paragraphs 49 and 50 of this judgment. Since the specific allegation and linding of the respondents against the petitioners is that the transaction entered into by the petitioner with the third respondent on l4.l2.2ol I is a benami transaction within the meaning of Section 2 (9) (A) read with Section 2 (9) (C) of the 1988 Act as amended bir the Amendment Act of 2016, we may once again analyze the said provisions. 69.L Admittedly, these two provisions were not in the statute either on the date when the 1988 Act was enacted or when the transaction took place on 14.12.2011. It has been brought into the statute book vide the Amendment Act of 2016. Question for consideration is whether the aforesaid definitions can be applied to the above transaction which took place on 14.12.2O11? 70. As per Section 2 (9) (A), a benami transaction would I mean a transaction or an arrangement - (a) where a property is transferred to or is held by a person and the consideration

5l lor such property has been provided or paid by another person; and (b) the property is held for the immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect of the person who has provided the consideration barring the four exceptions carved out with which we may not be concerned 71. Thus, as per Section 2 (9) (A), there must be a transaction or an arrangement; as per such transaction or arrangement, a property is transferred to or is held by a person; the consideration for such property provided or paid by another person. Pausing here for a moment, ona comparative anal.vsis ol this definition with the definition of benami transaction under the unamended 1988 Act, we find that there is a subtle but signilicant difference in the later definition even at this stage itself. As per the amended definition, the property need not be transferred by 'another person'. The property can be transferred to by any person or held by a person on behalf of any person. But the consideration for such property is provided or paid by the 'another person'. The amended definition proceeds further; such transferred property must be held for the immediate or ) future benefit of the person who has provided the )

consideration and such beneiit may be direct or indirect. It is equally significant to note that under the unamended 1988 Act there was no definition of 'benamidar' and 'beneficiai owner'. These two expressions are defined under the Amendment Act of 2016 and must be read in conjunction with the new definition of benami transaction as provided in Section 2 (9). Benamidar is the person, real or fictitious, in whose name the benami property is transferred or who holds such benami property; this would include a person who lends his name to such transfer or holding of benami property. Again, beneficial owner means, the person for whose benefit the benami property is held by a benamidar, whether his identity is known or not. 72. We may now revert back to Section 2 (9) (C) of the Amendment Acl, 2016, as per which a benami transaction means, a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property where the owner of the property is not aware of or denies knowledge of such ownership. Therefore, what Section 2 (9) (C) contemplates is that in the event of a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property if the ou'ner of the property says that he is not aware of and denies knowledge of

\a 53 such ownership, then such a transaction or an arrangement would be a benami transaction. 73. From the above analysis, it is beyond any doubt that Section 2 (9) (A) and Section 2 (9) (C) are substantive provisions, inasmuch as il a transaction or an arrangement comes within the ambit of the aforesaid two provisions, then it would be a benami transaction which is not only prohibited under Sub-Section (1) of Section (3) but is also an offence punishable under Sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof as well as under Section 53 of the 1988 Act as amended. It is interesting to note that under Sub-Section (2) of Section (3), the penalty for the offence of benami transaction is imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. However, Sub-section (3) of Section (3) clarifies that whoever enters into any benami transaction after coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2Ql6 i.e., after 01.1'1.2076, shall be punished in accordance with Section 53 notwithstanding , anything contained in Sub-Section (2) which provides for a \ stiffer penalty of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall \ not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and sha,ll also be liable to fine which may extend to I

54 twenty five percent of the fair market value of the property. We may, even at the cost of repetition, mention that it is not the case of the respondents that the transaction in question is a benami transaction within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the unamended 19BB Act. If it is a benami transaction under Section 2 (a) of the unamended 1988 Act, then it would attract the le sser penalty under Section 3 (2) . But if it is a benami transaction under Sections 2 (9) (A) and 2 (9) (C) of the 1988 Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 2016, then it will attract the stiffer penalty under Section 3 (3). 74, Respondents have contended that by the Amendment Act ol 2016 only machinery provisions have been incorporated in the 1988 Act. But for the reasons mentioned above, Section 2 (9) (A) and Section 2 (9) (C) cannot be said to be machinery or procedural provisions. Those are offence creating or defining provisions and hence substantive; and if a transaction or arrangement fa1ls within the four corners of the above provisions then it would attract a stiffer penalty than the hitherto milder penalty. 75. At this stage, we may briefly analyze the distinction between procedural 1aw and substantive 1aw. According to )

Black's Law Dictionary, gth edition, substantive law is that part of the law that creates, defines and regulates the rights, duties and powers of parties. On the other hand, procedural law would cover the ruies and prescribe the steps for having a right or duty judicially enforced, as opposed to the law that defines the specific rights or duties themselves. Supreme Court in Thirumalai Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of Indialo was considering the question as to whether the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, I999 u,as right in rejecting a belated appeal filed under Section 19 of the said Act by appiying the first proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 instead ol following the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. It was in that context, Supreme Court delved into the above issue. According to the Supreme Court, law is well settled that the manner in which the appeal has to be fiied, its forum and the period within which the same has to be filed, are matters of procedure, while the right conferred on a party to file an appea_i is a substantive right. Thereafter, Supreme Court delineated the 'o (2o11) 6 SCC 739 \

56 distinction between substantive and procedural laws as under: 23. Substantive lau, refers to a bod), of rules that creates, defines and regulates rights and liabilities. Right conferred on a party to prefer an appeal against an order is a substantive right conferred by a statute which remains unaffected by subsequent changes in law, unless modified expressly or by necessary implication. Procedural law establishes a mechanism for determining those rights and iiabilities and a machinery for enforcing them. Right of appeal being a substantive right always acts prospectively. It is trite law that everv statute is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. 24. Right of appeal may be a substantive right but the procedure for filing the appeal including the period of limitation cannot be called a substantive right, and an aggrieved person cannot claim any vested right ilaiming that he should be governed by the old provision pertaining to period of limitation. Procedural law is retrospective meaning thereby that it wiu apply even to acts or transactions under the repealed Act, 25. Law on the subject has also been elaborately dealt with by this Court in various decisions and reference may be made to a feu'of those decisions. This Court in Garikapati Veerayav. N. Subbtah Choudhry [AIR 1957 SC 540] , New India Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Shanti Mrsra [(1975) 2 SCC 8401 , Hitendra Vishnu Thakurv. State of Maharashtra l(1994) 4 SCC 602 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 10871 , Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeov. State of Bihar 111999) 8 SCC t6l and Shyam Sunder v. Rarn Kumar 112001) 8 SCC 24] , has elaborately discussed the scope and ambit of an amendjng legislation and its retrospectivity and held that every litigant has a vested right in substantive lau,but no such right exists in procedural law. This Court has held that the Iaw reiating to lorum and Iimitation is procedural in nature whereas law relating to right of appeal even though remedial is su bstantive in nature. 76, This brings us to the question of retro spectivity. The entire hearing was confined only on this point. While according to the petitioners, the impugned transaction being prior in point ol time to the Amendment Act of 2016, the definition of benami transaction under Sections 2 (9) (A) and 2 (9) (C) as introduced by the Amendment Act of 2016, would not be applicable. On the contrary, it is the contention of the

57 respondents that the delinitions as well as provisions like Section 24 providing for issuance of show cause notice etc., are machinery provisions and therefore they would be read to have become effective from the date the 1988 Act came into the statute book. However, in view of the discussions made above, we have held the above two provisions of Sections 2 (9) (A) and 2 (9) (C) to be substantive. 77. Article 20 of the Constitution of India deals with protection in respect of conviction for offences. Sub-Article (1) says that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. The other two Sub Articles of Article 20 are not relevant for the present discourse. So Articie 20 (1) has got two parts. By the first part, no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of \ the act charged as an offence. The second part says that \- . such a person shali not be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at

58 the time of commission of the offence. Sub-section (3) of Section (3) ol the 1988 Act as amended by the Amendment Act of2016 takes care ofthe second part ofArticle 20 (1) by clarifying that for committing the offence of benami transaction after the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016 i.e. from 01.11.2016, the offender would face a higher penalty notwithstanding the penalty provided in Sub-Section (2) ol Section (3). 74. Learned Additional Solicitor General had argued that Sub-Section (2) of Section (3) provides for penalty for committing the offence of benami transaction prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2076 i.e. prior to 01.11.2016. While this may be true, the fact remains that the charge against the petitioner is not of indulging in benami transaction as per the definition of benami transaction under Section 2 (a) of the unamended 1988 Act; rather the charge is specific; petitioner had indulged in benami transaction as defined under Section 2 (9) (A) read with Section 2 (9) (C) of the 1988 Act as brought in by the Amendment Act of 2016. Admittedly, these two provisions were not there when the transaction in question took place on 14. 12.2011. On the I

59 basis of our analysis we have aiready held these two provisions to be of substantive character as creating an offence; being of much wider amplitude than the substituted Section 2 (a) of the unamended 1988 Act' 79. Justice G.P. Singh in his ceiebrated work 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation', 14th edition writes that the Union Parliament and the State Legislatures have plenary por'r'ers of iegislation within the fields assigned to them but subject to certain constitutional and judicially recognized restrictions' Parliament as weil as State Legislatures can legislate prospectively as well as retrospectively However' according to him, it is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is pnma facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation' Quoting Lopes L.J, he says that every statute which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws or creates a neu' obligation or imposes a new duty or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions already past' must be presumed to be intended not to have retrospective effect' t Adverting to amending Act, he says that to apply an amending Actwhichcreatesanewobligationorpayadditional

60 compensation or which reduces the rate of compensation to pending proceedings for determination of compensation for acquisitions already made retrospectively would not be permissible unless such a construction follows from express words or necessary implication. Regarding penal statutes he is quite clear. Penal statutes which create offences or which have effect of increasing penalties in existing offences will only be prospective by reason of the constitutional restriction imposed by Article 2O of the Constitution. Therefore, if an Act creates a ne\ / offence it will bring into its fold only those offenders wh o com m it all ingredients of the offence after the Act comes into operation. It is a settled principle of interpretation of criminal law that such provisions have to be strictly construed and cannot be given a retrospective effect unless the legistative intent and expression is clear beyond ambiguity. However, the prohibition of Article 20 of the Constitution to enact retrospective penal laws would have no application to a law which onl1, modifies the rigor of an existing penal law.

6l 80. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra r r, one of the questions which fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the i993 amendment amending Section 157 (2) of the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) by modifying Section 2O (4) (b) and adding a neu, provision as Section 20 (41 (b), would be applicable to the pending cases i.e. rvhether it was retrospective in operation? Issue before the Supreme Cortrt was whether such amendment n'ould apply to pending cases i.e. those cases which were pending investigation on the date when the amendment came into lorce and charge sheet or challan had not been fi1ed. It may be mentioned that by way of the aloresaid amendment, the maximum period during which an accused under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 (TADA) could be kept ln custody pending investigation was reduced lrom one year to 180 days besides enabling the prosecution to seek extension of time for completion of the investigation. Evidently, this provision was beneficial to the accused and the Designated Court had held that the amendment vn ould operate retrospectively and would apply to the pending cases in which investigation was not rr 11994) 4 SCC 602 \

62 complete on the date on which the Amendment Act came into force and the challan had not till then been liled in the Court. It is in that context, Supreme Court culled out from the case laws the principles with regard to the ambit and scope of an Amending Act. It rvas held as follows: (i) A statllte rvhich aflects substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation, unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment, whereas a Statute which merely aflects procedure, unless such a construction is texturally impossible, is presumed to be retrospectivc in its application, should not be given an extendcd meaning, and shorrld be strictly conlined to its clearll' delined limits. (ii) Law relating to forum and iimitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal, even though remedial, is substantive in nature. (iii) Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law, but no such right exists in procedural law. (iv) A procedural Statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively, where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations, or to impose new duties in respect ol transactions already accomplished. (v) A Statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates a ne\\' rights and liabilities, shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication. 81. Thus, a statute rvhich affects substantive rights 1S presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective either expressly or by necessary intendment. On the other hand, a statute which merely elfects procedure is presumed to be retrospective. Every litigant has a vested

63 right in substantive law. But no such right exists in procedural 1aw. Even in case of a procedural law, it should not be generally applied retrospectively where the result would be to create new disability or obligation or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished. 42. Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K.S,Paripoornan Vs, State of Keralal2 was considering the correctness of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Zora Singhts, decided by a bench of three judges. ln Zota Singh (supra) it was held that payment of additional amount payable at the rate of l2ok p.a on the market value under Sub-Section (1A) inserted in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition (Amendrnent) Act, l984 had to be ordered in every case where the relerence \'V S pending belbre the reference Court on the date of commencement of the Amending Act. Constitution Bench noted that a statute dealing with substantive rights differs from a statute which relates to procedure or evidence or is .r (1994) s SCC 593 '(tggz) r scc 673 (.- \ declaratory in nature inasmuch as while the statute dealing t! / with substantive rights is pima /acie prospective unless it is l

6.1 expre ssly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect, a statute concerned mainly with matters of procedure or evidence or r,vhich is declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such u,as not the intention of the legislature. A statute is regarded retrospective il it operates on cases or facts coming into existence before tts commencement in the sense that it affects the character or consequences of transactions previously entered into or of other past conduct. It u,as further held the above principles are equally applicable to amendatory statutes. Like original statutes they will not be given retrospective construction unless the language clearly makes such construction necessary. There is a presumption that an amendment shall operate prospectively. The Constitution Bench held as lollows: 44. A statute dealing with substantive rights differs from a statute which relates to procedure or evidence or is declaratory in nature inasmuch as whiie a statute dealing with substantive rights is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect, a statute concerned mainly with matters of procedure or evidence or which is declaratory in nature has to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such rvas not the intention of the legislature. A statute is regarded retrospective if it operates on cases or facts coming into existence before its commencement in the sense that it affects, even if for the future only, the character or consequences of transactions previously entered into or of other past conduct. By virtue of the presumption against retrospective applicability of laws dealing lr'ith substantive rights transactions are neither invalidated bv t

reason of their failure to comply with formal requirements subsequenth' imposed, nor open to attack under porvers oI avoidance subsequent]y conferred. They are also not rendered valid by subsequent relaxations of the la$,, \\hether relating to form or to substance. Similarly, provisions in which a contrary intention does not appear neither impose new liabilities in respect of events taking place belore their commencement, nor relieve persons from liabilities then existing, and the view that existing obligations were not intended to be affected has been taken in varying degrees even of provisions expressly prohibiting proceedings. {See : Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. Yol. 44, paras 921, 922,925 and 9261. 45. These principles are equally applicable amendatory statutes. According to Crawford: to Amendatory statutes are subject to the general principles relative to retrospective operation. Like original statutes, they will not be given retrospective constructions, unless the language clearly makes such construction necessary. In other words, the amendment will usually take effect only from the date of its enactment and will have no application to prior transaction, in the absence of an expressed intent or an intent clearly implied to the contrary. Indeed there is a presumption that an amendment shall operate prospectively. 83. The above principles were reiterated by the Supreme Court in Videocon International Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of Indiala, The issue for determination before the High Court u,as \\,'hether amendment to Section l52 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Amendment) Act, 2OO2 would operate prospectively or retrospectively. The question was whether post arnendment an appeal would lie to the High Court or not. The High Court took the view that 14 (2O15) 4 SCC 33 65

66 such appeals filed after coming into force of the amended Section 152 would not be maintainable. This view was questioned belore the Supreme Court. Supreme Court proceeded on the basis ol two well established principles. Firstly, while provisions of a statute dealing merely with matters of procedure may have retrospective effect, provisions which touch upon an existing right are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment. Secondly, right of appeal is a substantive right. Supreme Court referred to the ambit and scope of an Amending Act as culled out in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) and thereafter held that there is a presumption against the retrospective operation of a statute; an Amending Act which aflects the procedure is presumed to be retrospective unless the Amending Act provides otherwise. Supreme Court succinctly highlighted the distinction between substantive law and procedural law in the following manner: Whether I have a right to recover certain property is a question of substantive law, for the determination and the protection of such rights are among the ends of the administration of justice; but in what courts and within what time I must institute proceedings are questions of procedural law, for they relate merely to the modes in uhrch the courts fulfill rheir [unctions. 84. Having noted the above, we lind that insofar the Amendment Act of 2016 is concerned, Sub-section (2) of

67 Section 1 thereof says that the said Amendment Act of 2016 shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of the Amendment Act of 2016 shall be construed as a reference to coming into force of that provision. Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (2) of Section 1, issued notification dated 25.10.2016 appointing the first day of November, 2016 (01.11.2016) as the date on which provisions of the Amendment Act of 2016 shall come into' force. 85. Thus, from the notification dated 25.1O.2016 as alluded to hereinabove, which has since been published in the Official Gazette, it has been clearly mentioned that Central Government has appointed the first day of November, 2016 as the date on lr,hich provisions of the Amendment Act of 2016 shall come into force. Respondents have not placed any other notification of the Central Government to the effect that provisions of Section 2 (91 of the Amendment Act of 20 16 shall have effect from an anterior date. In fact, in the earlier part of

6tt this judgment we have referred to Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, more particularly to Part A of Chapter VI thereof. Part VIII contained amendments to the 19BB Act. As per Section 173 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, Section 23 of the 1988 Act has been amended by insertion of an Explanation. But it has been clarified that such insertion sha1l be deemed to have come into force from the first dav of November, 2016. In other words, the Explanation should be read as part of the Amendment Act of 2016, which came into force with effect from the lirst dar. of November, 2016, Section 23 being part of the Amendment Act of 2016. However, as per Section 174 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, Section 24 of the 1988 Act brought into the statute book by tvay of the Amendment Act of 2016 has been further amended but with effect from the first day of September,2Ol9. There were other amendments also which \ rere given effect to from the first day of September, 2019. Therefore, r,vhen the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 sought to give retrospective effect to the amendment of Section 23, it u,as made expressly clear that the amendment to Section 23 bv vvav of insertion of the Explanation shall be deemed to have been given effect to from the first day of

f 69 November,2016 i.e. on the date when Section 23 was given elfect to. 86. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Ganpati Dealcom (supra) has held that the Amendment Act of 2016 cannot have retrospective application; it is prospective. However, in SLp (c) No.27B4 of 2o2o (union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom), a two Juclge Bench of the Supreme Court passed an order on 03.02.2O20 issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition and sra.ying that portion of the judgment of the calcutta High court decraring that the Amendment Act of 2016 is prospective in nature. A singie Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Niharika Jain (supra) has held that Amendment Act of 2016 cannot have any retrospective effect. However, following the order of the Supreme Court dated 03.02.2020 a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Deputy Commissioner Vs. Pallavi Mishra, vide the order dated 26.08.2020 has stayed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we have rerrained from referring to and relying upon the aforesaid decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Ganpati Dealcom (supra) and that of the Rajasthan High Court in Niharika Jain (supra).

70 a7. At this stage, \\re may deal with the decisions / orders relied upon b1' the respondents. In Kailash Assudani (supra) a Single Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the challenge made to an order of the Initiating Olficer prohibiting and restraining the petitioner from transferring or changing the subject property in any manner ti1l passing of necessary order by the adjudicating authority under the 1988 Act. The sole ground on which this order r,r,as challenged by the petitioner u,as that principles of natural justice were not followed by the Initiating Officer. It was in that context, learned Single Judge took the view that petitioner would have the opportunity to raise all possible grounds before the adjudicating authority and therefore did not interfere. 87.1 Insolar the decision of the Single Bench of the Madras High Court in Dinesh Chand Surana (supra) IS concerned, petitioner did not contend the ground of re tro spe ctivit\'. Petitioner onlr' challenged the order passed under Section 2a $) of the 1988 Act while complaining that documents sought for by him were not furnished. While relegating the petitioner to the forum of adjudicating authority, learned Single Judge ol the Madras High Court

'71 directed the respondents to furnish certified copies of the documents and statements recorded by the petitioner during the course of survey proceedings. 47,2 A Single Bench of the Chattisgarh High Court examined a challenge to the order of provisional attachment of immovable properties under Section 2a @l (b) of the 19gg Act. Contention made by the petitioner was that Section 24 of the 198[i Act, as amended by the Amendment Act of 2016, would not have retrospective eflect and would only be prospective i.e. with eflect from O 1. I 1 .20l6 onwards. It was in that context, learned Single Judge of the Chattisgarh High Court in Tulsiram (l supraf held that the provisions of the Amendment Act of 2016 would have no existence by itself without the provisions of the 19gg Act and therefore the entire 1988 Act inclusive of the amended provisions would apply irrespective of the period of purchase of the alleged benami property. We are afraid, in view of the line of reasoning which we have adopted, we can accept the view expressed by the learned Single Judge of Chattisgarh High Court. In fact, as noticed, the challenge was made to the applicability of Section 24 retrospectively. We have already

72 examined the provisions of Section 24 of the 1988 Act as introduced by the Amendment Act of 20i6' It provides for notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction. The circumstances and the procedure to be followed before issuing show cause notice is deait with in Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2) says that a copy of such notice should also be issued to the beneficial owner' Sub- Section -(3) empowers the Initiating Officer to provisionally attach the aileged benami property for a period not exceeding 90 days from the date of issue of the show cause notice under Sub-section (1) if the Initiating Officer is of the opinion that the person in possession of the property held benami may alienate the salne. While Sub-section (4) provides for continuation of provisional attachment till passing of order by the adjudicating authority or for revoking the provisionai attachment, Sub-section (5) says that in the event of continuation of provisional attachment of the property' the Initiating Officer shall make a reference to the adjudicating authority. Evidently, provisions of Section 24' ate clearly procedural and as we have analYzed above, a procedural ! provision can have retrospective effect; rather it is presumed to have a retrosPective effect' Therelore, while Section 24 maY

73 have a retrospective effect, we are clear in our view that Section 2 (9) (A) and Section 2 (9) (C) being substantive provisions, creating an offence by widening the definition of benami transaction cannot have retrospective effect. As a matter ol fact, Section 2 (9) (A) and Section 2 (9) (C) were not the subject of consideration in Tulsiram (1 supra) 87.3 Lastlr', respondents have also relied upon a Single Bench clecision of the Madras High Court in K,Nagarajan Vs. attachment order under the 1988 Act was on the ground ol violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned Single Judge took the vieu,that the challenge was made at the very initial stage u,hen the adjudication rvas not yet complete. Therefore, petitioner was relegated to the forum of the adjudicating authority, r,vith liberty to submit his objection / defence statements, evidence and documents, further directing the respondents to consider the same and conclude above decision can hardly be of any assistance to the respondents. ls W.P.No.22037 of 2017, decided on 31.08.2O21 Adjudication Authorityts. We find that challenge made to the proceedings in a time bound manner. We are afraid, the \

78 the pllrchase made in the name of wife or children is for their benefit would not be available in the present case' Aforesaicl cannot be accepted. As held by this Court in tlle case of Binapani Paul (Supra) the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act would not be applicable retrospectively. Even otherwise and as observed hereinabove, the Plaintiff has nriserably failed to clischarge his onus to prove that the Sale Deeds executed in favour oI Delelldant No. I were benami transaclions and the same pl'operties rvere purchased in thc name of Delcndant No 1 b1' Narayanasam.)' Mudaliar from the amotlnt received bv him liom the sale of other ancestral ProPerties. 92.1.Thus, Suprenrc Court held tlrat the 1988 Act lvould not be applicable retro spe ctiveiy ' After trolding so, the partition granted in favour of the plaintiffs vras suitably modified' 93. From thc conspectu:i of the discussions made above, it is apparent that Section 2 (9) (A) emd Section 2 (9) (C) are substantive provisions creating the offence of benami transaction. Thcse two provisions are significantlv and sLlbstantiall)' u'icler than thc' dellnition ol benami transaction urrder Sectjon 2 (al of the unalnended 1988 Act' Therefore, Section 2 (9) (A) ancl Section 2 (9) (C) can onlv have effect prospectively. Central Governnr'enr. has notified the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act of 2016 as 01.11.2016. Therefore, these trvo provisions cannot be // applied to a transactiorr which took place prior to 01 1 1 '2016' Admittedly, in thc preserlt case, the transaction in question is dated 14. l2.2O11 That being the position, we have no \

79 hesitation to hold that the show cause notice dated 30.12.2019, provisional attachment order dated 3l.12.2llg and the impugned order dated 3O.O3.2O2I are null and void being without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order rs set aside and quashed. 94, In the result, all the writ petitions are accordingly ailowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all these writ pe,tltion s, sha,ll starylclosed- That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above witness the Hon'ble Sri Satish Chandra Sharma, The Chief Justice on this Tuesday, The Eighth day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty Two. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR l-1Pt --- SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon'ble Sri lustice UJJAL BHUYAN (for His Lordships Kind Perusal) One fair copy to the Hon'ble Dr Justice CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA (for His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) To, 1. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500 004 2. The Joint Commissioner of lncome Tax, (Approving Authority) (Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit), 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. The Secretary (Revenue)), Union of lndia, North Block, New Delhi 4. lL LR.Copies 5, The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law,.Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi I 95. \

The Secidtary, Advocates' Association Library' High Court Buildings' Hyderabad' " z. bne cC t; sri. Y. siri Reddy, Advocate [oPUC].. s. o;; aa to Sri.Y. Sreenivas'a Reddv' Advocate [oPUC] 9. One CC to Sri.T. S"Vuftui'n neOOV'nOOf Solicitor General [OPUCI 10. one cc to sri.B. r.ru[.i.n" srrma, Asst. solicitor General toPUC] 11. Two CD CoPies 12. One SPare CoPY PM t.

62 ?- v HtcH couRT DATED:08/03/2022 Allowing the WPs Without costs. COMMONORDER . WP Nos.14695, 11680, 11681''13150' 1?i?61^, ii',iz,lars0, iezos, tziit, 13787'19991' 1180e' 13822' i A;;, ;;; o,:, 1 47 1 1, tit t zi, 1 47 24' 1!7-58^' 17 7 61' 17 7 66' i77os, 17770, 17772, ttttii, 17775" 177.90^'17782' 20469' ;oi;\', )o qt s, zt q ai, zo qaz, 204e0' 20 4e3^' :to,4ee' 20 503' io;;;:,izzqi,izzqzi, 23351, 23360 & 23537 ot 2021' l ) rl ^t rr -tt'- tr\\L \t $tL + srArQ o tra P.1 P 'zl\ ;) ,/ ')

More judgments on Section 24

Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), Rajkot
ITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Ashwin Kumar Rath, Pune vs DCIT (Investigation) Circle 12, Pune
ITA 791/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Radioactive Hospitality LLP, Delhi vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 55/PAT/2026[2023-24]Status: Heard23 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
Maniam Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), Kolkata
ITSSA 47/KOL/2026[2016-2017]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2016-2017
Maniam Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), Kolkata
ITSSA 46/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2015-2016

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →