SHRI NARA SURYANARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE GOWRANNA vs. CENTRALA BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

PDF · subscribers
WP/103660/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC02012981202230 November 2022Bench: HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the 2016 amendment to the Benami Property Transactions Act is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, it cannot be applied to properties purchased benami before the amendment's commencement.

What were the facts?

The petitioner challenged an order confiscating their properties under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The confiscation pertained to transactions entered into before the 2016 amendment of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the 2016 amendment to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act is retrospective in application to transactions prior to its commencement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Before: SHRI NARA SURYANARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE

- 1 -

WP No. 103660 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 103660 OF 2022 (T-PT) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI NARA SURYANARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE GOWRANNA S/O. LATE GOWRANNA, AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT. 21/2, SURYA NIVAS, 2ND CROSS, NEHRU COLONY, GANDHINAGARA, BALLARI-583101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGADHAR J M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CENTRALA BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2. UNDER SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001 3. INITIATING OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

- 2 -

WP No. 103660 of 2022

(BENAMI PROHIBITION) TRI STAR BUILDING, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, EDC COMPLEX, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA-403001 4. ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHASTRI BHAVAN 4TH FLOOR, NEW BUILDING COMPLEX, NO.26, HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600006 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV., FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO, A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2022 PASSED IN THE NAME OF CHUKKALLUR REDDY ANILKUMAR PASSED BY THIRD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1043638840(1) ANNEXURE-A4 AND CONSEQUENTIAL NOTICE BEARING F.NO.OCA/MDS/574/2022-PBPTA DATED 14.07.2022 ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY FOURTH RESPONDENT AS CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO 25.10.2016 TO BE QUASHED AS PER JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN CA.NO.5783/2022 DD. 23.08.2022 ANNEXURE-D. B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO FIX THE JURISDICTION FOR ADJUDICATION UNDER THE PBPT ACT BASED ON TERRITORIAL AREA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 3 -

WP No. 103660 of 2022

ORDER

The order dated 28.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the properties belonging to the petitioner has been confiscated in exercise of power under Section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, is impugned herein.

2.

Sri. Gangadhar J.M., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue whether the properties purchased benami before amendment of Benami Property Transaction Act, 2016, is prospective or retrospective was examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1064 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the amendment is prospective and the provisions of the amendment act are not applicable to the properties purchased through benami earlier to the commencement of the Amendment Act.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute the ratio enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme

- 4 -

WP No. 103660 of 2022

Court in the case of Union of India and another (supra). Therefore, this writ petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the said decision.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.06.2022 passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-A4 is hereby quashed and consequently, the notice dated 14/7/2022 issued by the respondent No.4 at Annexure-B is hereby quashed.

Sd/- JUDGE

VB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 134

More judgments on Section 24

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 24 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →