Section 18. Power of competent authority to require certain officers to exercise certain powers
(1) For the purposes of any proceedings under this Act or the initiation of any such proceedings, the competent authority shall have power to cause to be conducted any inquiry, investigation or survey in respect of any person, place, property, assets, documents, books of account or any other relevant matters.
(2) For the purposes referred to in sub-section (1), the competent authority may, having regard to the nature of the inquiry, investigation or survey, require an officer of the Income-tax Department to conduct or cause to be conducted such inquiry, investigation or survey.
(3) Any officer of the Income-tax Department who is conducting or is causing to be conducted any inquiry, investigation or survey required to be conducted under sub-section (2), may, for the purpose of such inquiry, investigation or survey, exercise any power (including the power to authorise the exercise of any power) which may be exercised by him for any purpose under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and the provisions of the said Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly.
Judgements applying section 18
Two writ petitions challenging forfeiture orders under the SAFEMA Act passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Tribunal. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that there is no time limit for proceedings under SAFEMA, notice to relatives cures the defect of non-notice to the convict, and petitioners…
DismissedOpenThe High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property confirming forfeiture under the SAFEM Act. The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove the validity of his adoption, which was a prerequisite to claiming the property was not linked to the original…
DismissedOpenDivision Bench writ appeal against setting aside of a SAFEMA Section 6(1) forfeiture notice issued to a detenu's family. Holding the notice prima facie sufficient and later nexus-requiring precedents distinguishable or per incuriam, the Division Bench set aside the writ order and allowed the appeal, restoring…
AllowedOpenSAFEMA 1976: Supreme Court (Khanwilkar & Khanna JJ., 14-12-2021, CA Nos. 8592-8593 of 2010) held that a primary notice under s.6(1) need not be served on the convict when forfeiture targets properties held by his relatives; notice lies to the person to whom the Act applies holding the property;
AllowedOpenPetitioner challenged initiation of proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act. Court directed filing of a representation to authorities without expressing opinion on merits and stayed coercive action.
DisposedOpenHeard learned counsel for the petitioner. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the initiation of proceeding against the petitioner under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 and
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the initiation of proceeding against the petitioner under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 and
DisposedOpenHeard learned counsel for the petitioner. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the initiation of proceeding against the petitioner under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 and
DisposedOpenHeard learned counsel for the petitioner. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the initiation of proceeding against the petitioner under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 and
DisposedOpenHeard learned counsel for the petitioner. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the initiation of proceeding against the petitioner under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 and
DisposedOpen