This court dismissed a petition challenging an Appellate Tribunal order that set aside forfeiture proceedings against properties acquired in 1993, finding the Tribunal satisfied itself regarding evidence of acquisition.
Set aside of the order dated 02.12.2017 and forfeiture of property was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~24
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, DELHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Ashutosh Nandan Atrey, Advocate.
versus
MANPREET SINGH OBEROI ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 06.11.2017
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
“(1) Ms Oberoi Industries, 2/1B Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi;
Page 1 of 7
W.P. (C) 4407/2017
(2) M/s Oxford Fashion 2/1B Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi.”
(The abovementioned properties are hereafter also referred to as „the said properties‟)
4.2 The principal allegation against the respondent was that he along with his associates, was engaged in fraudulent exports of cheap quality of automotive parts (Fuel Pump, Diaphragm) Microphones & Readymade Garments under Duty Entitlement, Passbook Scheme - cum Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme DEPS cum Drawback scheme and Duty Free Replenishment Certificate Cum Drawback Scheme. It is alleged that
Page 2 of 7
W.P. (C) 4407/2017
the respondent and his associates used to over-value the consignments declared before the customs authorities in India. Whereas, the consignments were declared to be of exorbitant values in India, the declarations made before the customs authorities of the importing countries indicated a significantly lower value. In this manner, the respondent had mis-declared the value of the goods in question and fraudulently availed of export benefits under the above-mentioned schemes.
4.3 In view of the above, there is no dispute the respondent is a person covered under Section 2(a)(d) of SAFEMA and his properties that fall with the definition of “illegally acquired property” within the meaning of Section 3(c) of SAFEMA, are liable to be forfeited under Section 7 of SAFEMA.
4.4 In accordance with Section 6(1) of SAFEMA, a Show Cause Notice dated 29.03.2005 was issued to the respondent to explain the sources of income out of which the respondent had acquired right, title and interest in the said properties. The respondent responded to the said Show Cause Notice and filed an affidavit affirming that he had purchased the property located at 2/1B, Anand Parbat, Industrial Area, New Rohtak Road, from O.P. Narula s/o of Diwan Chand Narula, resident of 6/38 Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on 26.03.1993 for a total consideration of ₹28,000/-. He further stated that he was aged about 19 years at the material time when the said property was purchased. He further stated that his mother, who was then working with the Ministry of Defence, Government of India since the year 1962, had provided ₹15,000/- for purchase of the said properties. Respondent‟s mother also filed an affidavit confirming the same.
Page 3 of 7
W.P. (C) 4407/2017
4.5 The Competent Authority rejected the respondent‟s contention and passed the order dated 04.03.2016 for forfeiture of the said properties principally for the reason that (i) that the documents produced by the respondent for establishing that he had purchased the said properties in 1993 – photocopy of sale agreement, General Power of Attorney, Purchase Receipt, etc. – were unregistered and unauthenticated; (ii) that the respondent did not place any evidence that he was 19 years old when the said properties were purchased; and (iii) that the respondent's mother had not produced any documentary evidence to explain the source of investment and, therefore, the contention that she had given ₹15,000/- to her son to acquire the said properties could not be accepted.
Page 4 of 7
W.P. (C) 4407/2017
“16. The original documents were produced by the appellant before us. The said documents, i.e. Receipt, General Power of Attorney, Sale Agreement and Affidavit were duly attested by the Notary on 26th March, 1993. The agreement to sell appears to be signed by two witnesses. We have also examined the back page of the stamp papers which contain the date 26th March, 1993. The photograph of Mr. O.P. Narula, who has sold the property to the appellant, is also pasted on the General Power of Attorney which is duly attested by the Notary Public. Similarly, the Agreement to Sell is apparently witnessed by the father of the appellant and the same was executed by Mr. O.P. Narula, seller and the appellant. Mr. O.P. Narula, seller has also executed an affidavit which is attested by the Notary Public, confirming that he has sold and transferred his property measuring 12‟ x 36‟ on ground floor and one room and open terrace on first floor built of land measuring 48 Sq. Yards to Manpreet Singh son of Sh. Amarjit Singh Oberoi and he has received the full consideration from the said purchaser. He also deposed that he has also executed the General power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will and a Receipt in favour of the appellant and he would not revoke or cancel any of the said documents.”
Page 5 of 7
W.P. (C) 4407/2017
respondent) but subsequently. The Tribunal noted that the firm which was allegedly involved in the illegal activities was incorporated in 2000. The Tribunal also observed that it had come on record that respondent was helping his father during the year 1993-2000 who was carrying on the business of plastic goods
Page 6 of 7
W.P. (C) 4407/2017
material that would even remotely cast a doubt as to the respondent‟s claim. The Tribunal had also noted that the Competent Authority had not even discussed that the firm involved in the illegal activities were established in the year 2000 and there was no allegation that respondent was involved in any illegal activity prior to the year 2000.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
NOVEMBER 06, 2017
pkv
Page 7 of 7
W.P. (C) 4407/2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Competent Authority was justified in setting aside properties acquired before the sting of SAFEMA by on ground that documents establishing acquisition were unregistered.
Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the respondent proved his properties were legally acquired in 1993.
6 provisions across 1 enactments
THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, DELHI
MANPREET SINGH OBEROI
VIBHU BAKHRU
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
