Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 cannot have retrospective effect: Calcutta HC




In 2011, appellant-writ petitioner purchased the property and sellers were diverse individuals. In 2017 after the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was amended by the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 with effect from 25-10-2016, authority invoked section 24(1) and issued a notice to the appellant alleging that the said property was benami under section 2(8) of the said Act of 1988, as amended.
It also alleged violation of section 2(9)(D) thereof and the consideration for this transaction was provided by "non-traceable fictitious/shell entities having no real business", rendering the transaction benami.
The Calcutta High Court held that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 was new legislation and in order to have retrospectivity, it should have been specifically provided therein that it was intended to cover contraventions at an earlier point of time.
That express provision is not there in the Act and, thus, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 could not be utilised to charge an appellant with contravention or convict him for an alleged offence under it but which was not so under the 1988 Act.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Recording of satisfaction is mandatory before cancellation of trust's registration: HC

Regarding availment of benefits under Vera Samadhan Yojana - 2019 (Tax Settlement Scheme) for pending dues