Loading High Court cases…
539 orders · Page 2 of 11
The High Court held that the tax effect in the appeal is less than the monetary limit fixed under the extant Circulars/Notifications issued by the CBDT, specifically Circular No. 17 of 2019. Therefore, the appeal would not survive for consideration on merits due to the low tax effect. The appeal was disposed of on this ground, keeping open the question of law raised. The court also clarified that if the appeal falls under any exception carved out in the circulars, either party can seek revival of the appeal by filing an appropriate note.
The High Court held that the appeal would not survive for consideration due to the low tax effect, as prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 19 dated 08.08.2019. The appeal is disposed of on this ground. However, the court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal remains open. The parties are granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal by filing an appropriate note in the Registry if it falls under any exceptions carved out in the aforementioned circular. The court did not decide the substantive question of law.
The High Court noted that a co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl. had already answered the substantial question of law concerning the provisions of Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that since this question was answered in favor of the appellant, he would not press the first substantial question of law regarding the invocation of Section 147. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by answering the substantial question of law in favor of the assessee, based on the precedent in Gauranginiben’s case. No orders as to costs were made. The issue concerning Section 147 was not decided on merits as it was not pressed.
The High Court held that the appeals filed by the Revenue would not survive for consideration on merits due to the low tax effect, which was below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Court disposed of the appeals on this ground, keeping open the questions of law raised. It was clarified that if the appeals fall under any exceptions provided in the circulars, either party could seek revival of the appeals by filing an appropriate note. The Court did not decide the substantial questions of law raised in the appeals.
The High Court held that the appeal stands disposed of as having a low tax effect, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The court explicitly stated that the appeal would not survive for consideration on its merits due to the low tax effect. However, the question of law raised in the appeal was kept open. The court also clarified that either party would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal by filing an appropriate note in the Registry if the appeal falls under any exception carved out in the said circulars. No specific finding was made on the substantive tax issues.
The High Court held that the appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect, as the tax effect is less than the monetary limit fixed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The court explicitly stated that the question of law raised in the appeal is kept open. It further clarified that if the appeal falls under any exception carved out in the said circulars, either party is at liberty to seek revival of the appeal by filing an appropriate note in the Registry. The court did not decide the substantial question of law on its merits.
The High Court held that the appeals would not survive for consideration due to the low tax effect, as defined by the monetary limits in the extant CBDT Circulars/Notifications, specifically Circular No. 17 of 2019. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of on the ground of low tax effect. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law raised in the appeals were kept open. It was further clarified that if the appeals fall under any exceptions provided in the circulars, either party could seek revival of the appeals by filing an appropriate note with the Registry. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law.
The High Court has disposed of the appeal filed by the Revenue. The primary reason for this decision is that the tax effect arising from the Assessing Officer's order and the consequential demand is below the monetary limit stipulated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in its Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. Consequently, the appeal would not ordinarily survive for consideration. The Court has made it clear that the question of law raised in the appeal remains open. The parties are granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal if it falls under any exception carved out in the aforementioned CBDT Circulars by filing an appropriate note in the Registry.
The High Court held that the appeals would not survive for consideration due to the low tax effect, as defined by the monetary limits in the extant CBDT Circulars/Notifications, specifically Circular No. 17 of 2019. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of on the ground of low tax effect. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law raised in the appeals were kept open. It was further clarified that if the appeals fall under any exceptions provided in the circulars, either party could seek revival of the appeals by filing an appropriate note with the Registry. No decision was made on the substantial questions of law.
The High Court observed that the tax effect in the present appeal is less than the monetary limit fixed under the extant Circulars/Notifications issued by the CBDT, specifically mentioning Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. Consequently, the Court held that the appeal would not survive for consideration on merits due to the low tax effect. The appeal was therefore disposed of on this ground. However, the Court made it clear that if the appeal falls under any exception carved out in the said Circulars, either party is at liberty to seek revival of the appeal by filing an appropriate note in the Registry. The question of law raised in the appeal was kept open.
The High Court noted that a co-ordinate bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl., reported in 367 ITR 238, had answered the substantial question of law concerning Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Following this precedent, and given that the assessee's counsel did not press the first substantial question of law after the second was decided in their favour, the appeal was allowed. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee. The court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the appeal was disposed of based on the precedent and the assessee's submission.
The High Court held that the appeal would not survive for consideration due to the low tax effect, as prescribed under the extant Circulars/Notifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), specifically Circular No. 17 of 19 dated 08.08.2019. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on the ground of low tax effect. However, the court made it clear that the question of law raised in the appeal remains open. The parties were granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal if it falls under any exception carved out in the said circulars, by filing an appropriate note in the Registry. The court did not decide the substantial question of law on merits.
The High Court noted that a co-ordinate bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl. had already answered the substantial question of law concerning the provisions of Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's counsel stated that since the second substantial question of law was decided in favor of the assessee by this Court, they would not press the first substantial question of law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by answering the substantial question of law in favor of the assessee. The operative direction was to allow the appeal. No orders as to costs were made. The pending application was consigned to record.
The High Court, in its oral order, allowed the Special Civil Application. It relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Apex Court had held that concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act (25.10.2016), and all such proceedings shall stand quashed. Applying this principle, the High Court held that the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings initiated pursuant to the Amendment Act were squarely covered by the Apex Court's declaration and were therefore quashed. The Court also noted that any questions left open by the Apex Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also be applicable to the present facts.
The High Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously answered the substantial question of law concerning Section 55A in favour of the assessee in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan Indl. (367 ITR 238). Following this precedent, and given that the assessee's counsel stated they would not press the first substantial question of law (related to Section 147) in light of the favourable decision on the second question, the Court allowed the appeal. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction was to allow the appeal.
The High Court held that the appeal is meritless and no substantial question of law arises. The Court relied on the decision of this Court in Rachna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which in turn relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in EBR Enterprises vs. Union of India. These decisions clearly state that as per Section 80A(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if an assessee fails to make a claim for deduction under specified provisions (including Section 80IB) in its return of income, no such deduction shall be allowed. The Court emphasized that this statutory provision is a bar and cannot be overcome by the general powers of revision under Section 264 of the Act or by judicial interpretation that might have existed prior to the insertion of Section 80A(5). Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in confirming the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80IB(11A) because the claim was not made in the original return of income. The appeal is summarily dismissed.
The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's order and reasoning. The Tribunal had observed that the assessee had submitted all necessary documents, including bank statements, books of accounts, details of investment, and source of investment, along with audited financial statements during the assessment proceedings. The AO had issued a notice under section 142(1) and, based on the submitted documents and evidence, had made adequate inquiries. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had not specified why the fair market value of shares needed investigation, how to compute it, or what type of inquiry the AO ought to have conducted. A mere observation of lack of proper details was insufficient to conclude that the AO failed to make adequate inquiries. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, quashing the order passed under section 263. The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order.
The High Court held that the notice dated March 25, 2019, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2012-2013 was not tenable in law. The Court found that the issue of provision for doubtful debts was already considered during the original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3). The Assessing Officer had examined the details submitted by the petitioner and was satisfied, leading to the passing of the assessment order without any addition on this point. Therefore, the reopening constituted a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd., which held that after April 1, 1989, reopening under Section 147 requires tangible material to believe that income has escaped assessment, and a mere change of opinion cannot be the basis for reopening, especially when the assessment is sought to be reopened beyond a period of four years. Consequently, the impugned notice under Section 148 and the consequential order dated November 15, 2019, were quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) who deleted the addition. The Tribunal found that no incriminating material relating to the purchase of the land was recovered during the search. It noted that the land was purchased by Smt. Neetaben Patel for Rs. 2.5 crores in installments between 2009 and 2011 and introduced as capital contribution. The Tribunal reasoned that the land cost could not be estimated at Rs. 12.60 crores, especially since other entries in the loose sheet matched the firm's books, and no other investment of Rs. 10.10 crores was shown. The Tribunal also observed that the AO had not verified the land cost from partners or previous owners and that any addition should have been in the hands of Smt. Neetaben Patel for AY 2011-12, not the firm for AY 2013-14. The Tribunal relied on the principle that mere admission, without corroborative evidence, is insufficient for additions, citing Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nageshwar Enterprises. The High Court agreed with the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal.
The High Court held that the issue of what constitutes 'Plant' for the purposes of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act is no longer res integra. The Court referred to its own decision in Niko Resources Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [(2017) 395 ITR 301(Guj)]. In that case, it was laid down that for an article to qualify as Plant, it must have some degree of durability and fulfill the function of plant in the assessee's trading activity, acting as a tool of trade. The Court had reversed the Tribunal's decision in Niko Resources, holding that mineral oil wells constitute 'Plant' for the purpose of Section 32 of the Act, and not buildings. Therefore, the High Court found that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's impugned judgment. The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the issue raised in the appeal is covered by its earlier decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Vadodara-1 vs. Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. The Court reiterated its reasoning that for the purpose of Section 80IA(8), the market value of electricity supplied by a captive power plant to another unit of the assessee should be considered as the price at which the electricity board supplies power to its consumers. The Court found no error in the Tribunal's approach of adopting the GEB's consumer rate as the market value. The fact that this rate includes a component of electricity duty, which is passed on to the government, does not alter the market value from the perspective of the consumer or the open market. Therefore, the Tribunal's deletion of the disallowance was upheld. The Court noted that this issue has been considered on multiple occasions by the Court and consistently held against the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the rate of interest on the refund is to be 6% per annum, as prescribed by Notification No. 75/2003-Cus(N.T.) dated 12.09.2003, which is a statutory provision binding on the revenue. The Tribunal further held that the appellant is not entitled to interest on interest. This decision was based on the reasoning that there is no specific statutory provision in the Customs Act, 1962, or the Central Excise Act, 1944 (which are pari materia in this regard), that allows for the award of interest on interest. The Tribunal relied on the decision in International Industrial Cases Ltd., which held that interest on delayed payment of interest cannot be awarded for want of a specific provision. The Tribunal also clarified that the Supreme Court's decision in Sandvik Asia Ltd. was misinterpreted and did not direct payment of interest on interest but rather compensation for inordinate delay in refunding amounts including statutory interest. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively, not retroactively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings initiated for pre-2016 transactions stand quashed. The High Court applied this principle to the present case, quashing the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The Court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also be applicable to the facts of this case.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively, not retroactively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings initiated for pre-2016 transactions stand quashed. The High Court applied this principle to the present case, quashing the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The Court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also be applicable to the facts of this case.
The High Court, in its oral order, held that the issue raised by the petitioners was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated August 23, 2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to October 25, 2016, and such proceedings shall stand quashed. The High Court found that this declaration squarely applied to the present case, leading to the quashing of the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The Court also noted that any questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also be applicable to the facts of this case. The Special Civil Application was allowed.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.8.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016, and all such proceedings shall stand quashed. Applying this ratio, the High Court quashed the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would apply to the present facts.
The High Court allowed the Special Civil Application, quashing the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated August 23, 2022. The Supreme Court had held that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to October 25, 2016, the date the 2016 Act came into force. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings initiated for pre-2016 transactions were to stand quashed. The High Court noted that the question left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) regarding independent forfeiture proceedings under the 2016 Act on other grounds would also apply to the present case. No order as to costs was made.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.8.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016, and all such proceedings shall stand quashed. Applying this ratio, the High Court quashed the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would apply to the present facts.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that the in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings stand quashed. The High Court found that the petitioner's case squarely fell under this declaration, leading to the quashing of the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) would apply to the present facts.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that the in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings stand quashed. The High Court found that the petitioner's case squarely fell under this declaration, leading to the quashing of the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) would apply to the present facts.
The High Court of Gujarat, in its Special Civil Application, allowed the petition. The Court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Apex Court had held that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016 (the commencement date of the 2016 Act). As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings initiated for pre-2016 transactions stand quashed. Applying this ratio, the High Court quashed the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The Court also noted that any questions left open by the Apex Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also be applicable to the present facts.
The High Court allowed the Special Civil Applications, quashing the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 (dated 23.08.2022). The Supreme Court had held that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively, not retroactively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016, the date the 2016 Act came into force. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings initiated for pre-2016 transactions were to stand quashed. The High Court found this declaration squarely applicable to the present case. The Court also noted that any questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also apply to the facts of this case.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that the in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings stand quashed. The High Court found that the petitioner's case squarely fell under this declaration, leading to the quashing of the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) would apply to the present facts.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated August 23, 2022. The Supreme Court had declared that authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act (October 25, 2016). Consequently, all such prosecutions and confiscation proceedings initiated were quashed. Applying this principle, the High Court found that the prosecution and initiation of proceedings in the present case, being pursuant to the Amendment Act, squarely fell within the Supreme Court's declaration. Therefore, the impugned attachment order was quashed, along with all consequential proceedings. The Court also noted that any questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also be applicable to the facts of this case.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that the in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings stand quashed. The High Court found that the petitioner's case squarely fell under this declaration, leading to the quashing of the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) would apply to the present facts.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act (25.10.2016). Consequently, all such prosecutions and confiscation proceedings initiated were to stand quashed. Applying this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings initiated pursuant to the Amendment Act were squarely covered by the Supreme Court's declaration. The Court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also be applicable to the facts of the present case. The Special Civil Application was allowed, quashing the attachment order and consequential proceedings, with no order as to costs.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.8.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016, and all such proceedings shall stand quashed. Applying this ratio, the High Court quashed the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would apply to the present facts.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively, not retroactively. Consequently, authorities could not initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016, and all such proceedings were to stand quashed. Applying this principle, the High Court quashed the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The Court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also be applicable to the facts of this case.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated August 23, 2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to October 25, 2016. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings initiated for pre-2016 transactions stand quashed. The High Court applied this principle to the present case, quashing the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also apply to the facts of this case.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively, not retroactively. Consequently, authorities could not initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016, and all such proceedings were to stand quashed. Applying this principle, the High Court quashed the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The Court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also be applicable to the facts of this case.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that the in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings stand quashed. The High Court found that the petitioner's case squarely fell under this declaration, leading to the quashing of the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) would apply to the present facts.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that the in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings stand quashed. The High Court found that the petitioner's case squarely fell under this declaration, leading to the quashing of the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) would apply to the present facts.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had declared Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act and Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act unconstitutional for being arbitrary and violative of Article 20(1). It also held that the in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act and the 2016 Act were punitive and could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016, and all such proceedings shall stand quashed. The High Court applied this declaration to the present case, quashing the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The Court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would apply to the facts of this case.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated August 23, 2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to October 25, 2016. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings initiated for pre-2016 transactions stand quashed. The High Court applied this principle to the present case, quashing the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also apply to the facts of this case.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016, and all such proceedings shall stand quashed. Applying this to the present case, the High Court held that the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings initiated pursuant thereto were squarely covered by the Supreme Court's declaration and were therefore quashed. The Court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also be applicable to the facts of this case.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that the in rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016. As a result, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings stand quashed. The High Court found that the petitioner's case squarely fell under this declaration, leading to the quashing of the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) would apply to the present facts.
The Gujarat High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act (25.10.2016), and all such proceedings shall stand quashed. Applying this principle, the High Court found that the prosecution and initiation of proceedings in the present case, being pursuant to the Amendment Act, were squarely covered by the Supreme Court's declaration. Consequently, the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings initiated pursuant thereto were quashed. The Court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would also apply to the facts of this case. The Special Civil Application was allowed.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.8.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016, and all such proceedings shall stand quashed. Applying this ratio, the High Court quashed the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would apply to the present facts.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.8.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016, and all such proceedings shall stand quashed. Applying this ratio, the High Court quashed the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would apply to the present facts.
The High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 dated 23.8.2022. The Supreme Court had concluded that the 2016 Amendment Act prescribed substantive provisions and that its in rem forfeiture provisions, being punitive, could only be applied prospectively. Consequently, authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to 25.10.2016, and all such proceedings shall stand quashed. Applying this ratio, the High Court quashed the impugned attachment order and all consequential proceedings. The court also noted that questions left open by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18.1(f) of its judgment would apply to the present facts.