Disposed

M/s.v.P.C & Co. v. The Adjudicating Authority

Madras HC5 Jul 2018WP/3028/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras directed the Adjudicating Authority to furnish the petitioner firm with a certified copy of the proceedings dated 20.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 in a benami property matter, holding that the petitioner was entitled to it as they participated in the enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to furnish a copy of the proceedings dated 20.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 within one week.

M/s.v.P.C & Co. Vs The Adjudicating Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.07.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶6

W.P. No.3028 of 2018 and W.M.P. No.3700 of 2018

¶7

M/s.V.P.C. & Co., rep. by its Partner R.Ramesh

¶8

.. Petitioner -vs-

¶9

1.The Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 Room No.26, 4^th Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001.

¶10

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) Initiating Officer, Room No.104, Income Tax Investigation Wing Building, 1^st Floor, 46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. .. Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to furnish the petitioner Firm with the certified copy of the proceedings dated 20.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 respectively in R-114/2017 on the file of the first respondent, considering the applications of the petitioner firm made in Entry No.765 dated 17.01.2018 and Entry No.775 dated 19.01.2018 respectively.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Muralikumaran for M/s.MC Gan Law Firm For Respondents : No appearance for R1 Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel for R2

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner firm has come to this Court seeking a direction to the first respondent to furnish it a certified copy of the proceedings dated 20.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 in R-114/2017 on the file of the first respondent, considering its applications made in Entry Nos.765 and 775 dated 17.01.2018 and 19.01.2018 respectively.

¶17

2.The petitioner is an unregistered Partnership Firm vide a Deed of Partnership dated 09.04.2014. It has been carrying on the business as a dealer in metal scrap which includes Iron, Steel, Copper etc. for the past 14 years. The petitioner Firm has been assessed to Income Tax under PAN No.AAFFV2650Q and the partners of the said Firm has also been assessed to Income Tax under PAN Nos.ACVPR8881H and AMIPK4579J respectively. At the time of demonetisation, the petitioner Firm deposited a sum of Rs.68,71,23,000/-. Out of the said sum, a sum of Rs.48 crores represents the sale proceeds of scrap and Rs.19 crore undisclosed income accumulated over the years in the business of the petitioner Firm. While this is so, a search was conducted in the premises of the petitioner Firm on 17.03.2017 by the Income Tax Department and all the records of the Firm were seized. Subsequently, the Firm was issued with a Show Cause Notice by the second respondent under Section 26(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 for adjudication before the first respondent and the Firm also duly appeared before the first respondent and filed its reply dated 16.11.2017. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a Rejoinder to http://www.judis.nic.in the Reply dated 27.11.2017 and a Sur-Rejoinder dated 30.11.2017 was also filed

¶18

¶19

by the petitioner firm before the first respondent. When the matter was taken up for final hearing on 20.12.2017, at the request of second respondent, the matter was adjourned to 18.01.2018, despite objection made by the petitioner firm and subsequently the matter was adjourned from time to time. However, the petitioner firm made applications for furnishing of the first respondent's proceedings dated 20.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 in R-114/2017 in Entry Nos.765 and 775 dated 17.01.2018 and 19.01.2018. Finding no response, the petitioner firm is before this Court.

¶20

3.Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the second respondent, by way of

¶21

filing a counter affidavit would submit that there is no adverse order passed against the petitioner on 20.12.2017 by the first respondent and this apart, the petitioner is not entitled to get a copy of the proceeding in the light of Section 11 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 which reads thus:

¶22

'11.The Adjudicating Authority shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to other provisions of this Act, the Authority shall have powers to regulate own procedure.'

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

T.RAJA, J.

vga

4.But this Court is unable to find any justification to support the

¶28

submission made by the learned counsel for the second respondent for the reason that when it is an admitted fact that the first respondent has conducted enquiry and in which the petitioner has admittedly taken part, any order or proceeding passed in favour of the petitioner or against him, should be furnished to the petitioner, which has not been done.

¶29

5.Therefore, the first respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the proceedings dated 20.12.2017 and 18.01.2018 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed.

¶30

05.07.2018

¶31

Speaking/Non speaking order vga

¶32

¶33

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) Initiating Officer, Room No.104, Income Tax Investigation Wing Building, 1^st Floor, 46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

W.P. No.3028 of 2018

M/s.v.P.C & Co. v. The Adjudicating Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.v.P.C & Co. v. The Adjudicating Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Moorthi, Vs The Inspector General of

A/M.Mangali Amman Thirukoil Vs the Secretary to Government

Ever King Granites Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

M.Palraj, Vs The Superintendent of Police

V.Lakshmi Veeraraghavan, Vs The Director

A.Alahudeen, Vs State of Tamil Nadu