The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition on the availability of statutory remedy under of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The court held that the petitioners may avail the said remedy.
Santosh Bhadoriya, the petitioner has called in question (i) show cause notice issued under Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Act of 1988’) and (ii) Provisional Attachment Order (P.A.O.) issued under Section 24(3) of Act of 1988.
Shri Sumit Nema, Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the show cause notice and provisional attachment order are called into question mainly on the ground that the alleged benami transaction has taken place before 01/11/2016, the date when the Act of 1988 stood amended. In view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & another vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (2023), show cause notice and provisional attachment order is bad in law.
The Revenue filed SLP, which was not entertained by the Apex Court by holding that review of the judgment of Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited is pending. Liberty was reserved to approach the Apex Court again by filing a fresh petition in case review petition (s) is allowed.
The impugned order is subject to judicial review before the adjudicating authority. The order passed by the adjudicating authority can be assailed before the appellate tribunal constituted under Section 31 of the Act. The order of the appellate tribunal can also be called into question by preferring an appeal to the High Court within 60 days. A microscopic reading of provisions makes it clear that principles of natural justice are reduced in writing in the shape of amendment in the said act. The amended provisions contain a complete code in itself.
The ‘adjudicating authority’ is best suited to decide the question of the Benami nature of the property. The petitioners can avail the remedies under the Act of 1988 and take all possible factual and legal grounds before the ‘adjudicating authority’. Needless to mention the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Advance Infra Developers (P) Ltd. and other judgments can be relied upon by the petitioners before the ‘adjudicating and appellate authority’ (if required) to impress upon it to take a different view than the view taken by Appellate Authority in M/s. Prism Scan.
Justice Sujoy Paul & Justice Vivek Jain held that there is no reason to entertain these petitions despite the availability of statutory alternative remedies. The petitioners may avail the said remedy. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
