Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses Petition Challenging Attachment of Benami Properties [Read Order]

Benami Properties - Madhya Prasesh - HC - Taxscan

The  Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses a writ petition challenging the legality and validity of attachment of Benami Properties and Provisional Attachment Order.

The division bench comprising of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Anjuli Palo finds this as trite law that scope of interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice by this Court is limited.

In the present case, show-cause notice has been issued, the opportunity has been given to the petitioner. The order impugned is provisional/tentative in nature. It is subject to judicial review by adjudicating authority. If the order of adjudicating authority goes against the petitioner, the further forums of judicial review of the said order are available to the petitioner before the appellate tribunal and then before this Court. Hence, against the tentative/provisional order, no interference is warranted by this court at this stage. During the pendency of this case, the respondents have passed a consequential order under Section 24(5) of the Prohibition of Benami Properties Transactions, 1988 (Act of 1988). Shri Mishra urged that as per Section 24 of the Act of 1988, the Initiating Authority must have reasons to believe that on the basis of material in his possession any person is a benamidar in respect of the property.

The Court came into the conclusion in the light of judgment in Kailash Assudani vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which was affirmed by the Divisional Bench impugned notice is tentative in nature and after passing the order as envisaged in Sub-section (5) of Section 24 of the Act, the petitioners have a valuable right and forum to get their points redressed. The adjudication will be made by Adjudicating Authority wherein all necessary points can be taken note of. At this stage, interference may be declined. He placed reliance on the order passed by this Court.

While dismissing petitions court observed that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all relevant aspects before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 of the Act of 1988, interference is declined.

Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment

Related Stories