Allowed

Nexus Well-Hope Agritech International Ltd. v. The Adjudicating Authority and 3 others

Telangana HC13 Sept 2022WP/35092/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitions challenged show cause notices, provisional attachment orders and adjudicating orders treating certain transactions as benami under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. Following its earlier decision and the Supreme Court's ruling in Ganpati Dealcom that the 2016 Amendment operates prospectively, the Court set aside and quashed the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions allowed without costs; impugned show cause notices, provisional attachment orders and adjudicating orders set aside and quashed.

Nexus Well-Hope Agritech International Ltd. Vs The… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTIC;E UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶5

W.P.NOs. 331 9J, 33195, 33'1 98. 33 1 $9-3320 3, 34454, 34670,

¶6

34676 34687 34691 34755 34799 34.800 34801 34802 34803

¶7

35092, 3s093, 35113, 35132, 351 34. 35,144. 3s146. 351 53. 351 54,

¶8

35155, 351 56, 3517 1, 35276, 35279 AtlD 33403 OF 2022:23070.

¶9

23497 23501 23566 231575 0F 2021

¶10

wRtT PETITION NO.33191 0F 2022:

¶11

Between:

¶12

M/s. Neopride Pharmaceuticals Limited,^{(Represr:nted} by its Director) 27-17-55116, Plot No. 19, ASR Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seetharamaraju Kalyana Mandapam, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra^{Pradesh- 534202}

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

1 The Adiudicating Authority, ISAFEM(FOP)A, and NDPSA], UTSAV,64/1, G.N Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶16

1. Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transaclions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rdFloor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶17

Kowuri Sai Venkata Satya Narayana Redcly, S/o. Kovvuri Suri Reddy, H.No. 7-8, Peethalava Village, Kruthivennu Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521324

¶18

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶19

,.,RESPONOENTS

¶20

¶21

Petition un er Article 226 of the Constitution of lnrlia^praying that in the circumstances st. ted in the affidavit filed therewith, thr lligh Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order nr direclior in nature of writ of mandamus dec aring the impugned Order OCI/1.1DSi331 /2021-PBPI d|.2510312022 issr ed by the 1st respondent as being arbitr3ry', illegal, violative of principles of natur rl^justice and without authority of law an s<d a,;ide the same.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶23

Petition unr er Section 1 5 1 CPC praying that in the c rcum itances stated in the affidavit filed i support of the petition, the High Cou( rray br; pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No.OCA/IUDS/33112021-PBPT dl.25lo3l2o22 by I re 1't respondent.

¶24

Counsel for the P )titioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM FOFI M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDT)'I'

¶25

Counsel for the R :spondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. I{ARASIMHA SHARMA, S.C. FOR lN:ClvlE IAX

¶26

Couirsel foi-the R :spondent No. 4: SRi B. t!,IUKHERJEE ii:r:'. F()R ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENEIT \I., OT: INDIA

¶27

Counsel for the R rspondent No.3:^--

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.33195 C) ,t022

¶29

Between:

¶30

M/s. Neopride Phi 'maceuticals Limited, (Represented by its D,irector) 27 -'l 7 -55 I 1 6, Plot No. 1S, AS 1 Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seetharamara ju l"ialyana Mandapam, Bhimavaram, Wesl Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 5342t'),)

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

The Adjudic rting Authority, (SAFEM(FOP)A and Nt)r$iA), UTSAV , 64/1, G.N. Chetty load, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600017

¶34

Assistant⁽ ommissioner of lncome Tax. (lni:iirt n,.r ()fficer) Benami Transactionr Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3nj l:l:,tr^' Aayakai Bhavan, Basheerbag Hyderabad - 500004-

¶35

Kovvuri Kar aka Durga, W/o. Kowuri Vr:nkata Surtti ReJdy, H.No. 7-9, Peethalava 'illage, Kiuthivennu Mandal, Krishna Districr, Ardiria pradesh - 521324

¶36

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary^(Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

Petition under A(icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order OCA/lvlDS/337/2021- PBPT d1.25.03.2022 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbrtrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶39

IANO:2OF2 22

¶40

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MDS/337/2021- PBPT dt.25.03.2022 by the 1st respondent.

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. I{ARASIMHA SHARMA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶44

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -

¶45

WRIT PETITION NO: 33198 OF 2022

¶46

Between:

¶47

M/s. Neopride Pharmaceuticals Limited, (Represented Plot No.' 19, ASR Nagai, bpp. Airii^{-SeLii,iiAnaiaiu} by its Director) Katyana 27-17-55116lr/andapam, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 534202

...PETITIONER

AND

The Adjudica inq Authority, SAFEIV(FOP)A and NDF'Sl , UTSAV, 64/1 , G.N. Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶52

Assistant C rmmissioner of lncome Tax, (lnit ati tg Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Flc c r, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagl Hyderabad- 500004

¶53

Kovvuri Sun Reddy, Slo. Kovvuri Kaniki Reddy, ll No. l'-9, Peethalava Village, Kruth vennu lVlandal, Krishna District, Andhra F'r eclesh-s2 1 324

¶54

Union of lnd a, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), Ncrth Block, New Delhi

¶55

Petition undr r Article 226 of the Constih.rtion of lnciir rraving that in the circumstances stal:d in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue . n appropriate writ, order or directic'n in nature of writ of mandamus decla rng the impugned Order OCA/I/DS/33012021-PBPT d1.2510312022 issue I by the 1st respondent as being arbitrl v iilegal, violative of principles of natura lustice and without authority of law anC set asile the same.

¶56

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶57

Petition und€ Section 151 CPC^praying that in the c r,:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in rupport of the petition, the High Court nr;ry be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/fV trS^/33()/202'1- PBPT dt.2fl032022 by th^, l st respondent,

¶58

Counsel for the Pe tioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶59

Counsel for the Re pondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. I{ARASIMHA S|HARMA, S.C. FOR INCCME T,q,X

¶60

Counsel for the Re pondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE ltl:lr. FOlt ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENEII,. '()F INDIA

¶61

Counsel for the Re, pondent No.3: -

¶62

VRIT PETITION NO: 33199 0r:2();lil

¶63

Betwee n:

¶64

¶65

lr//s. Neopride Pharrnaceuticals Limited., (Represr:nted by its Director) 27-17-55116, Plot No. 19, ASR Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seetlraramaraju Kalyana Mandapam, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 534202.

¶66

..PETITIONER

¶67

AND

¶68

The Adjudicating Authority, (SAFEIV(FOP)A and NDPSA), UTSAV, 64/1 , G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶69

Assistant Commissioner of lncome lax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3'o Floor, Aayakai Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶70

lmmaneni Mallamma, W/o. lmmaneni Venkateswarlu, H.No. 9-28, ltrlain Road, Yadavalli Village, Kalindini Mandal, Andhra Pradesh-521324

¶71

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶72

...RESPONDENTS

¶73

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order OCA/MD 5132912021-PBPf d1.18.03.2022 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶74

A 2 F 022

¶75

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCAlMDSl329l2021- PBPT dt.18.03.2022 by the^'1st respondent

¶76

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHIAM FOR

¶77

M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶78

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 2: SRI B. IIARASIMHA SHARMA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶79

counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶80

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -

¶81

Between:

¶82

M/s. Neopride Phar naceuticals Limited, (Represented by is l)i'ector) 27-17-55116, Plot No. 19, ASt Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seetharamaraju^(;llysl1a Mandapam, Bhimavaram, West ;odavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 534202

¶83

,..PETITIONER

¶84

AND

¶85

The Adjudic€ ing Authority, SAFEIV(FOP}\ and NDPSA UTI3AV 64/1, G.N. Chetty Road, i i{agar, Chennai-600017

¶86

Assistant C mmissioner of lncome Tax, -(lnitiatirrg Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3'' Flo:, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh Hyderabad- 500004

¶87

lmmaneni Ra nakrishna, S/o. lmmaneni Subbarao, H.No.4{j, Yadavalli Village, Kaladindi Mar dal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh- t21144

¶88

Union of lnd r (Represented by Secretary (Revenu,: ), North Block, New Delhi

¶89

...RESPONDENTS

¶90

Petition und(^- Article 226 of the Constitution of lrrdi;r )ra!'ing that in the circumstances stat d in the aff idavit filed therewith, the li3h Court may be pleased to issue i n appropriale writ, order or direction n na:ure of writ of mandamus decla ing lhe impugned Order OCA't'lDS/33612021-PBPT d1.2510312022 issue I by the 1st respondent as being arbilrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural ustice and without authority of law and s()t aside the same.

¶91

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶92

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci'(u'nstances stated in the affidavit filed in upport of the petition, the Fligh Court 'nay l)e pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCr\rNlDS/33612021-PBPI dt.25.03.2022 by thr 1st respondent.

¶93

Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMFIAM FOR

¶94

M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶95

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. |IARAS|MHA SHARMA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶96

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶97

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -

¶98

WRIT PETITION NO: 344. 54 0F 2022

¶99

Between:

¶100

M/s. Neopride Pharmaceuticals Limited, (Represonted by its Director) 27-17-55116, Plot No. 19, ASR Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seetharamaraju Kalyana Mandapam, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 534202

¶101

...PETITIONER

¶102

AND

¶103

1 The Adjudicating Authority, (SAFEN/(FOP)l and NDPSA), UTSAV, 64/1 , c.N Chetty Road, T. Nagar,Chennai-60001 7

¶104

Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, _(^nitiating Officer), Bena m i Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3'" Floor. Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶105

Rajanala Krishnamurthy, S/o. Ra.j anala Sivarao, H.No. 7-9, Peethalava Village, Kaladindi Mandal, Krishna District,,\ndhra Pradesh-S21 344

¶106

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶107

...RESPONDENTS

¶108

Petition under Article 226 oI lh.e Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order OCA/MDS/33S12021-PB PT d1.25.O3.2022 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶109

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶110

¶111

Petition unde Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the :ir<)umst,3nces stated in the affidavit filed in upport of the petition, the High Court n'Ey be Dleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/IVESi33til2021- PBPT dt.25.03.2022 by th{ 1st respondent.

¶112

Counsel for the Pel tioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHIAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶113

Counsel for the Rer pondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. I{ARASIMHA SHAttMA, s.c. FoR rN(){)\4r: T/\x

¶114

Counsel for the Re! pondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE RI:t,. FOII ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENETIITI.^t:)F INDIA

¶115

Counsel for the Re: pondent No.3:^--

¶116

lWi7ooE2)jtjl

¶117

Between:

¶118

Nexus Well-Hope Ag itech lnternational Ltd,^(Represented by its,\dditional Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Shaikpet Nala, Saipriya R.rsidency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyder :bad-500008

¶119

,.PETITIONER

¶120

AND

¶121

1 The Adjudicat rg Authority, (SAFEI,1(FOP)A and NDPSAT JTSiAV, 64/1 , G.N ChettyRoad, Nagar,Chennai-600017

¶122

1. Assislant Cc nmissioner of lncome Tax, ( lnitiating Olficer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aarrakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶123

Kowuri Sai V, nkata Satya Narayana Reddy, S/o Kor^ru'i lSufi Reddy, H. No. 7-8, Peethal; ra Village, Kruthivennu lvlandal, Krish ^a District, Andhra Pradesh - 521 \24.

¶124

Union of lndi. ,^(Represented by Secretary (Revenue ) , North Block, New Delhi

¶125

..Rl:SPONDENTS

¶126

Petition unde Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia p raying that in the circumstances state I in the affidavit filed therewith, the lligrh (lourt may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ, order or direction iir natrtre of writ of

¶127

()

¶128

mandamus declaring the impugned Orde,r OCA/lM DS/349/2021- PBPT dt.27lo4l2022 issued by the 1'r respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶129

IA NO 1 0F 2022

¶130

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MDS 134912021-PBPT dt. 2710412022 by the 1 "t respondent.

¶131

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶132

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. IIARASIMHA SHARMA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶133

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶134

Counsel for the Respondent No.3:^--

¶135

WRIT PETITION NO: 34ei76 OF 2022

¶136

Between:

¶137

Nexus Well-Hope Agritech lnternational Ltd,^(Represenled by its Additional Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Shaikpet Nala, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500008

¶138

...PETITIONER

¶139

AND

¶140

'I . The Adjudicating Authority, (SAFEM (FOI') A and NDPSA) UTSAV,64/1, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶141

Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶142

Satti Ganga Bhavani, W/o. Satti Suryanarayana Reddy, H.No. 7-10, Peethalava Village, Kruthivennu l,4andal, l"(rishna District, Andhra Pradesh - 521 324

¶143

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North BIock, New Delhi

¶144

¶145

...F ESPONDENTS

¶146

Petition undt' Article 226 of the Constitution of lnciir l)ra)/ing that^'n the circumstances stat d in the affidavit filed therewith, the H gh Court may be pleased to issue i n appropriate writ, order or direction n nature of writ of mandamus declar ng the impugned Orde'r OCA/I/lS,35C/2021- PBPT dt.2710412022 issue 1 by lhe 1st respondent as being arbilrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural iustice and without authority of law and s:t aside the same.

¶147

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶148

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praying tlrat in the :irr,urnstances stated in the affidavit filed in ,upport of the petition, the High Court ney be pleased to stay the operation of re impugned Order No. OCA/|,1DS/3;0/2021- PBPT dt. 27 !04/2022 by the 1 it respondent.

¶149

Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMI-IIAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶150

Counsel for the Rer pondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. NARASIMHA SHAIIMA, S.C. FOR !NCtlME Trr-X

¶151

Counsel for the Re: pondent No.4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE Ftt:l'. FOtl ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENEFIAI-^(:)F INDIA

¶152

Counsel for the Rer pondent No.3:^--

¶153

VRIT PETITION NO: 346i87 OF 201'.',1

¶154

Betwee n:

¶155

Nexus Well-Hope Ag itech lnternational Ltd., (Represented by ils ,\dditional Director) D.No.8-1-301i86-87, Plot No.101, Shaikpet Nala, Saipriya R,:)sidency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyder rbad-500008.

¶156

..PETITIONER

¶157

ANN

¶158

The Adjudical ng Authority, (SAFETU(FOP)A and NC)F'SA), Shastri Bhavan, 4th Floor, Nerr Building Complex, No.26, Haddows Roa I Ciherrnai-600006.

¶159

Assistant Cc nmissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiatin I Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Flo<,r Aal,akar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, lyderabad- 500004

¶160

¶161

Ainala Parameshwar Rao, S/o Ainala Bogaiah, D No 11-46, Yadavalli Village, Kalindindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh - 521344.

¶162

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶163

...RESPONDENTS

¶164

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order OCr/MD 5/353/2021-PBPT d1.21.04 .2022 issued by the^'1 st respondent as beirrg arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶165

IA NO: 10F 2022

¶166

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MDS/35312021-PBPI dt.21.04.2022 by the 1"t respondent.

¶167

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM^FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶168

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. NARASIMHA SHARMA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶169

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B.^{MUKHERJEEREP. FOR} ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶170

Courlsel for the Respondent No.3:^--

¶171

WR lT PETITION NO: 346i91 OF 2022

¶172

Between:

¶173

Nexus Feeds Limited, (Represented by its lvlanaging Director) D.No. B-1-301/86-87 '101, Saipriya Residency, Hyderabad - 500 008

...PETITIONER

AND

1 . The Ad^jud ica ing Authority, (SAFEM(FOP)A and NI)l) lA),^(ihastri Bhavan, New Building lomplex (4th Floor), 26, Haddows Roari,^(:hr:nnai- 600 006

¶178

Assistant Cr mmissioner of lncome Iax, (lnitialirrg Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3'' Flo r^', Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh Hyderabad- 500 004

¶179

Goluguri Bhar kar Reddy, S/o. Suri Reddy, tiamakrishn: R,-.ddy' Nagar, Penumantra, Vest Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh-^j l4'124

¶180

Bokka Sriniva ; Rao, S/o Bokka Sahadevudu, D.No.()-i S.N.l\agar, Kalidindi Il4andal, Krish ra District, Andhra Pradesh- 521 344

¶181

M/s. Nakshah r Feeds Ltd , (Represented by its Manergir g Dirr:ctor) D.No. 481 9-4, Samath r Residency, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijavevrada- 520 008

¶182

Union of lndia (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)r, North Etlock, New Delhi

¶183

Petition und€ Article 226 of the Constitution of lrdi: praying that in the circumstances stat d in the affidavit filed therewith, the li,3h Court may be pleased to issue .1 appropriate writ, order or direction n nature of writ of mandamus declari g the impugned Order No. OCA/lv1t)S/37'l I 2O21-PBPT d1.21 .04.2022 issue by the 1st respondent as being withou' ;urisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, violative of p inciples of natural^justice and without a llhority of law and set aside the same.

¶184

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶185

Petition unde Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the^,:i'r urnstances stated in the affidavil filed in upport of the^petition, the High Court nay 5e^pleased to stay the operation of th( impugned Order No. Order No. OC,A,NID'S137912021-PBPT d1.21 .O4.2022 by th( 1st respondent.

¶186

Counsel for the Pel tioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHiAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶187

Counsel for the Rer pondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. NARASIMH.A SHAIIMA, s.c. FoR INC() !1E Tl\X

¶188

Counsel for the Re:^pondent No. 6: SRI B. MUKHERJEE Flt:t'.^trOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENEFIA1. OF INDIA

¶189

Counsel for the Res rondent Nos.3 to 5: -.

¶190

¶191

WRIT PETITION NO: 34i'55 OF 2022

Between:

...PETITIONER

AND

The Adjudicating Authority, SAFEM(FOP)A, and NDPSA, UTSAV, 64/1 , G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-6000'17

¶197

Assistant Commissioner of lncome l'ax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rdFloor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶198

Satti Suryanarayana Reddy, S/o. Satti Son i Reddy, H.No.7-1 0, Peethavalava Village, Kruthivennu l/andal, Krishna Distrir;t, Andhra P radesh-S21 324

¶199

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶200

...RESPONDENTS

¶201

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order OCA/IV DS/33212021-PBPI dt.25.O3.2022 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶202

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶203

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/[\4DS/332/2021- PBPT d1.25.03.2022 by the 1st respondent.

¶204

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶205

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. IIARASIMHA SHARMA,

¶206

S.(). FOR INCOME TAX

¶207

¶208

Counsel for the Res rondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE R E F . l:OFl ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENEFTI, CIF II!DIA

¶209

Counsel for the Res rondent No.3: --

¶210

!^{/RlT PETITION NO:347'99 OF 202i}

¶211

Between:

¶212

I\4/s. Neopride Pharn aceuticals Limited, (Represented by its; )ire'cto-) 27-17-55116 ptol t\o.- i-e, AdR N;s;r, opp Atiurt 5e-ettrira.iirj, t,at;;d r,rranoipam, Bhimavaram, West C rdavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 5342()2

¶213

...PETITIONER

¶214

AND

¶215

i.TheAdjudicat ChettyRoad,'	rgAuthority Nagar,Ch	, SAF nnaai	EIV FOPlandNDPSq -6000'17	LITSA,V,64/1,G.N.
2.AssistantCc Transactions Basheerbagh,	nmissioner Prohibition lyderabad-	of Un 5000	lncomeIax,(lnitiatinI it,Hyderabad3rdFlcor-, 04	Officer)Benami AayakarBhavan,
3.SattiGanga PeethalavaV 521324	Bhavani, lage,Kruth	W/o ivenu	. SattiSuryanarayanaR Mandal,l(rishnaDirrti,;t	eddy,H.No.7-10, , AndhraPradesh-
4.Unionoflndi Delhi	(Represe	nted	bySecretary(RevenLte),	NorthBlock,New .R::SPONDENTS

¶216

Petition unde Article 226 of lhe Constilution of lnC a^pray ng that in the circumstances statr I in the affidavit filed therewith, th,: t{igh '3ourt may^be pleased to issue a r appropriate writ, order or directio,-t i' nature of writ of mandamus declarir g the impugned Order OCA/MD S,3a\312021 -PB^PT d1.25.03.2022 issue, by the 1St respondent as treing arbitrz r l, illegal, violative of principles of natural ustice and without authority of law anc l;r,l ;rsice the same.

¶217

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶218

Petition unde Section 1 51 CPC praying tlrat in the t;ircurrstances stated in the affidavit filed in r upport of the petition, the High Court rna y l)e pleased to stay

¶219

¶220

the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MDS/33312021-PBPf dt.25.03.2022 by theist respondent,

¶221

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶222

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. I{ARASIMHA SHARMA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶223

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶224

Counsel for the Respondent No.3:^--

¶225

WRIT PETITION NO: 34t100 OF 2022

¶226

Between:

¶227

M/s. Neopride Pharmaceuticals Limited, (Represented by its Director) 27-17-55116, Plot No. 19, ASR Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seetharamaraju Kalyana Mandapam, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 534202

¶228

...PETITIONER

¶229

AND

¶230

The Adjudicating Authority, SAFEIVI(FOP)A, and NDPSA, UTSAV, 64/1 , c.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶231

Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rdFloor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶232

Ainala Parameshwar Rao, S/o. Ainala Eogaiah, D. No.1 1-46, Yadavalli Village, Kaladindi Mandal, Krishna District, r\ndhra Pradesh-521 344

¶233

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶234

...RESPONDENTS

¶235

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order OCA/IV DS/33812021-PBPT d1.25.03.2022 issued by the^'lst respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶236

¶237

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶238

Petition und( Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir:umsiances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rrrly be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCArl\lt)S/333/2021- PBPT d1.25.03.2022 by th : 1st respondent.

¶239

Counsel for the Pe itioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHIAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDD''T

¶240

Counsel for the Re rpondent Nos.1 & 2r SRI B. I\ARASIMFI, SiHARMA, S.C. FOR INCC ME TAX

¶241

Counsel for the Re ,pondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE 1Ep. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENEqAL..CF INDIA

¶242

Counsel for the Re^,pondent No.3: --

¶243

AJRIT PETITION NO: 34tr01 Ol= 2022'

¶244

Between:

¶245

M/s. Neopride Phar raceuticals Limited, (Represt:nted by ils [)irector) 27-17-55116, Plot No. 19, ASF Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seetharamaraju^(alyarra Mandapam, Bhimavaram, West⁽ ,odavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 53420 2

¶246

...PETITIONER

¶247

AND

¶248

1 . The Adludica ng Authority, SAFEM(FOP)A and NDPSl., JTI}AV, 64/1 , G.N. Chetty Road, i-. Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶249

2- Assistant Cr mrnissioner of lncome J-ax, (lniti?lir g Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd F oc', Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh Hyderabad- 500004

¶250

Pillarisetti Bl lskar Rao, H.No. 4-138, Satyanaraya r;r Nagar, Mulalanka, Kalidindi [t/lan al, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh

¶251

Union of lndr r, (Represented by Secretary (Revenu,:)), Noth Block, New Delhi

¶252

...RESPONDENTS

¶253

Petition unde Article 226 of the Constitution of lndiz tr,raying that in the circumstances statr C in the affidavit iiled therewith, the^-.ii{lh Court may be pleased to issue € r appropriate writ, order or direction rn nature of writ of

¶254

1'l

¶255

mandamus declaring the impugned Orde,r OCA/MDS/334/2021- PBPT dt.21 .03.2022 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶256

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶257

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying tlrat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/lt/DS133412021- PBPT dt. 21 .O3.2022 by the 1't respondent.

¶258

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶259

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. MRASIMHA SHARMA, S.(). FOR INCOME TAX

¶260

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶261

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -

¶262

WRIT PETITION NO: 34ti02 OF 2022

¶263

Between:

¶264

M/s. Neopride Pharmaceuticals Limited, (Represented by its Director) 27-17-55116, Plot No. 19, ASR Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seetlraramaraju Kalyana Mandapam, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 534202

¶265

...PETITIONER

¶266

AND

¶267

'l . The Adjudicating Authority, (SAFEM(FOP)A and NDPSA )UTSAV,64/1 , G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600017

¶268

Assistant Commissioner of lncome lax, ,t^{lnitiating Officer)Benami}

¶269

Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3 Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004

¶270

3 lmmaneni Dhanalakshmi, W/o. lmmaneni Ramakrishna, H. No.46, Yadavalli Village, Kaladindi Mandal, Krishna District,,qndhra Pradesh-52'l 3{4

¶271

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶272

...F ESPONDENTS

¶273

¶274

Petition und( r Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lnc i;r l)raying that n the circumstances stal ,d in the affidavit filed therewith, th e High Court may be pleased to issue r n appropriate writ, order or directic n in nature of writ of mandamus declari rg the impugned Order OCA/[\4Dli/3 10/2021- PBPT dt. 25.03.2022 issued ry the 1St respondent as being arbil'er r . illellal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law an,l s:t asi,le the same.

¶275

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶276

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praying tlrat in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in ;upport of the petition, the High Court nr. )./ be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MDr3 340/21021-PBPT dt. 25.03.2022 by the 1 ;t respondent

¶277

Counsel for the Pe tioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHIAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶278

Counsel for the Re pondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. I\ARASIMHA SHARMA, s.c. FoR lNc3[.4E TAX

¶279

Counsel for the Re pondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE l1l:^). FOI? ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENEIl,\ - {)F INDIA

¶280

Counsel for the Re^pondent No.3:^--

¶281

ryRlT PETITION NO: 34E03 Ot: 2) 22

¶282

Betwee n:

¶283

I\I/s. Neopride Pharr raceuticals Limited, (Represented by its [)rr,:ctc'r) 27-17-55116, PIot No. 19, ASF Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seetharamaraju l(alyana l,4andapam, Bhimavaram, West⁽ odavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 53420;2

¶284

-.-PETTTIONER

¶285

AND

¶286

1 The Adjudical ng Authority, (SAFEM(FOP)A and NDPSA), UTliAV, 64/1 , G.N, Chetty Road, . Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶287

¶288

Assistant Commissioner of lncome l ax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶289

Bontu Parvati, W/o. Bontu Sarveswara Rao, H. No.4-313, Mulalanka Village, Kalindindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh - 521344

¶290

Unron of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delh i

¶291

...RESPONDENTS

¶292

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitlrtion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ. order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order OCAlMDSl328l2021- P13PT dt.18to3t2)22 issued by the 1st respondent as treing arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶293

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶294

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying tlrat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MDS132812021- PBPT^dt. 1810312022 by the 1st respondent.

¶295

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHIAM^FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶296

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B.^IIARASIMHA SHARMA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶297

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP.^FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶298

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -

¶299

WRIT PETITION NO: 35Ct92 OF 2022

¶300

¶301

Betwee n:

¶302

Nexus Well-Hope A lrrtech lnternational Ltd, (Represented l,/ ts Adlitional Director) D.No.8-1-301i86-Bi Plot No.101, Shaikpet Nala, Saipriy.r Flesilency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony Hydt 'abad - 500008

¶303

.PETITIONER

¶304

AND

¶305

The Adjudici ting Authority, (SAFEN/(FOPtA and NDFSr), Shastri Bhavan, 4th Floor, Ne v Building Complex, No.26, Haddows Ro rrl lhe'nnai - 600006

¶306

Assistant C rmmissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitialirro Officer), Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, HyderabeLd 3rd Fk,c r, Aeryakar Bhavan, BasheerbaglHyderabad - 500004

¶307

Kowuri Kan ka Durga, W/o. Kovvuri Venkata Subbi Fledd v, H. No. 7-9, Peethalava \ llage. Kruthivennu ltrlandal, l(rishna D s.r rl Arrdh ra Pradesh - 521324

¶308

Union of lndii .^(Represented by Secretary (Revenue), :r.h Block, New Delhi

¶309

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶310

Petition undr r Article 226 of the Constitution of lndi,) rraving that in the circumstances stal rd in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to issue n approprrate writ, order or directic,n in nature of writ of mandamus decla ing the impugned Order OCA/I/DS/35112021-PBP\ dt.21 .04.2022 issue I by the l st respondent as being arbi:r;ary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and s=t asirie the same.

¶311

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶312

Petition unde Seclion 151 CPC pi'aying that in the cirr;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in ;upport of the petition, the High Court nrz y be )leased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MD{),3f;1/2021-PBPT dt. 21.04.2022 by the 1 it respondent.

¶313

Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHIAM FOR n,l/q vanrnnAN oll ctor^ptrnnv

¶314

Counsel for the Rer pondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. NARASIMH.A SHAIIMA, S.C. FOR IN(;() VIt: TAX

¶315

Counsel for the Rer pondent No.4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE F'.[:t,^:Otl ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENEFIAI. OF INDIA

¶316

¶317

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -

¶318

WRIT PETITION NO: 35093 OF 2022

¶319

Between:

¶320

Nexus Well-Hope Agritech lnternational Ltd, (Rep.esented by its Additional Director) D.No.8-1-30'l/86-87, Plot No.'101, Shaikpet Nala, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500008.

¶321

...PETITIONER

¶322

AND

¶323

The Adjudicating Authority, (SAFEIV(FOP)A and NDPSA), Shastri Bhavan, 4th Floor, New Building Complex, No.26, Hi:ddows Road, Chennai-600006.

¶324

Assistant Commissioner of lncome I ax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004.

¶325

Satti Suryanarayana Reddy, S/o Satti Sonri Reddy, H. No. 7-10, Peethalava Village, Kruthivennu lvlandal, Krishna Distri<;t, Andhra Pradesh - 521 324

¶326

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi.

¶327

...RESPONDENTS

¶328

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ. order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Orderr OCAlMDSl352l2021- PBPT dt.2110412022 issued by the 1 st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶329

lA NO:^'t OF 2022

¶330

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying tlrat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MDSl352l 2021- PAPT dt.2110412022 by the 1st respondent.

¶331

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMI-ilAM FOR

¶332

M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶333

))

¶334

Counsel for the Rer pondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. NIARASIMH.A S"IARMA, S.0. FOR INO() Vll: Tr\X

¶335

Counsel for the Re: pondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE Flt:t'^iOtl

¶336

ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENEFllil. OF INDIA

¶337

Counsel for the Rer pondent No.3: --

¶338

'VRIT PETITION NO: 35113 OF 20:l:l

¶339

Between:

¶340

Nexus Well-Hope Ag itech lnternational Ltd., (Represented by its ,\dditional Director) D. No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot Njo.101, Shaikpet Nala, Saipriya ir)sicisncy, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyder rbad-500008

¶341

PETITIONER

¶342

AND

¶343

1 The Adiudical ng Authority, SAFEM(FOP)I\ and NDF)fir\ UTS,AV 64/1, G.N Chetty Road, . Nagar, Chennai-600017 2. Assistant Cc nmissioner of lncome l ax, (lniti:rtin; Officer) Benami Transacirons^oi'ohrbition Unrt. Hyderabad 1.AEl. at Aay akar Basheerbagh iyderabad- 500004

¶344

Rajanala Kris rnamurthy, S/o. Rajanala Sivarao, 11. lJo.11-46, Yadavalli Village, Kalad rdi tt/andal, Krishna District, ,Andhra Prcde;h-521344 4. Union of lndi (Represented by Secretary (Revenue ) , North Block, New Delhi

¶345

,,.RI:SPONDENTS

¶346

Petition unde Article 226 of the Ccnstitution of lnCia pray,ng that in the circumstances stat( j in the affidavit filed therewith, th{: tlielh Oourt may be pleased to issue a r appropriate writ, order or directiorr i'r nature of writ of mandamus declari rg the impugned Orderr OCA/lvltXi1ii45r2021- PBPT d1.25.03.2022 issuer by the 1st respondent as being arbitran'. Ilegal, violative of principles of natural Jstice and without authority of taw and :,et aside the same.

¶347

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶348

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ciro rrnstances stated in the affidavit filed in r "rpport of the petition, the High Court rn.r', lie pleased to stay

¶349

1.1

¶350

the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MDS134512021- PBPT dt 2510312022 by.the 1st respondent.

¶351

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMI-,IAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶352

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. I\ARASIMHA SHARMA, S.O. FOR INCOME TAX

¶353

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶354

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: --

¶355

WRIT PETITION NO: 3s132 OF 2022

¶356

Between:

¶357

N//s. Nutrient ft/arine Foods Ltd, (Represented by its fi/anaging Director) D. No.27-1755/16, Plot No-19, ASR Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seer:a Ramaraju Kalyana lvl andapam, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 534202

¶358

...PETITIONER

¶359

AND

¶360

The Adjudicating Authority, (SAFEIV(FOP)A andlC-1'1DPSA), UTSAV, 64/1 , G.N. Chefty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶361

Assistant Commissioner of lncome l ax,^(lnitiating Office| Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3'' Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶362

Pilli Thrimurthulu, S/o. Pilli Venkanna, H.No. 2-102, Mulalanka Village, Kalindindi Mandal, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh.

¶363

Union of India, (Represented by Secretary^(Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶364

...RESPONDENTS

¶365

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Orde,r OCA/MDS/30412021-PB PT d|.21 .03.2022 issued by the 1st respondent as t)eing arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶366

¶367

lA NO: 2 aF 2022

¶368

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praylng tlrat in the liroutnslances stated in the affidavit filed in ;upport of the petition, the High Court nre y be tleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/|MCSi304i2021- PBPT dt.21 .03.2022 by thr 1st respondent.

¶369

Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMIiIAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDD\

¶370

Counsel for the Rer pondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. IIARASIMHA SHAIIMA, S.C. FOR lNCrl[4F T/\X

¶371

Counsel for the Re: pondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE RI:l,. FOlt ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENEIU\I. 0F INDIA

¶372

Counsel for the Re:^pondent No.3: --

¶373

VRIT PETITION NO: 35134 Ol:21)'.1.,-

¶374

Behl/een:

¶375

M/s. Nutrient N4arine Foods Ltd, (Represented by its Managingr )irectrr) D.No.27-1755/16, Plot No.19, ,,SR Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seeta Ramarajtt Kalyana lt/andapam, Bhimavaram, West⁽ odavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 5342lll

¶376

...PETITIONER

¶377

AND

¶378

1 The Adjudica ng Authority, SAFEM(FOP)A, and NDFSp, UTS;AV, 64/'1 , G.N Chetty Road,^-, Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶379

1. Assistant Cr mmissioner of lncome J ax, (lnitiat!r !l Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rdFloc,r Aa'rakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh Hyderabad- 500004

¶380

Pilli Ganesh, l/o. Pilli Trimurthulu, D.No. 1l-102, Mulalarka Village, Kalidindi It4andal, Krish ra District Andhra Pradesh.

¶381

Union of lndi r, (Represented by Secretary (Reven "rr:)) No th Block, New Delhi

¶382

,..RESPONDENTS

¶383

Petition und€ Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndre p,raying that in the circumstances stah d in the affidavat filed therewith, the^-1i{lh Court may be pleased to issue z r appropriate writ, order or directior n nalure of writ of

¶384

¶385

mandamus declaring the impugned Orde,r OCA/N/DS/303/2021-^pBpT d1.18.03.2022 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶386

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶387

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying tlrat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCAi MDS/30312021-PB?T dt.18.03.2022 by the 1st respondent.

¶388

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMI'iAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶389

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. NARASIMHA SHARMA,

¶390

S.(:. FOR INCOME TAX

¶391

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICIToR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶392

Counsel for the Respondent No.3:^--

¶393

WRIT PETITION NO: 35144 OF 2022

¶394

Between:

¶395

M/s. Nutrient Marine Foods Ltd, (Represented by its ltrlanaging Director) D.No.27-1755/16, Plot No.'19, ASR Nagar, Opp. Alluri Seeta Ramaraju Kalyana Mandapam, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 534202

¶396

...PETITIONER

¶397

AND

¶398

The Adjudicating Authority, (SAFEM(FOP)h and NDPSA), UTSAV, 64/1, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶399

Assistant Commissioner of lncome l ax, (lnitiating Office{ Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶400

Bokka Srinu, S/o. Bokka Suryanarayana, H.No. 2-7511-1, Satyanarayana Nagar, lVlulalanka Village, Kalidindi ft4andal Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶401

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), No(h Block, New Delhi

¶402

...RESPONDENTS

¶403

ta)

¶404

Petition unde Article 226 of lhe Constitr.rtion of lnd e^p raying that in the circumstances stat( d in the affidavit filed therewith, th: ltiqh 3ourt may be pleased to issue e r appropriate writ, order or directio-l in nalure of writ of mandamus declar rg the impugned Order OCA/t\4t)l;/308'2021- PBPT dt.21lO3l2O22 issue 1 by the 1"t respondent as being arbitranr, illegal, violative of principles of natural ustice and without authority of law and SCt ilsice the same.

¶405

IA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶406

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praying that in the oircurlst€rnces stated in the affidavit filed in upport of the petition, the High Court ma^y be^prleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/I/D S/318/2021-PBPT dt.2110312022 by th( 1 st respondent.

¶407

Counsel for the Pet lioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHIAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶408

Counsel for the Re: condent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. I\ARASIMI]r\ SllAFlMA, S.C. FOR lNColilt: Tl0(

¶409

Counsei for the Res oondent No. 4: SRI B. IJ{UKHERJEE^FIE I'.^l:OFl ASSISTANT SOLICIToR GENEF]I.[ C)F II{DIA

¶410

Counsel for the Re: rondent No.3:^--

¶411

! VRIT PETITION NO: aUrO6 g7 2(t1'2

¶412

Between:

¶413

Nexus Well-Hope Ag itech lnternational Ltd.,^(Represented by it; /\dd tional Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Shaikpet Nala, Saipriya 1€'sid,rncy, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyder rbad-500008

¶414

AND

¶415

1 The Adjudicati rg Authority, SAFEM(FOP)A AND NDPS,\ Shastri Bhavan, 4th Floor, New Bu ding Compiex, No.26, Haddows Road, Ch:nnai'600006

¶416

2 Assistant Cc nmissioner of lncome lax, (lnitiatir,l Ot'icer) Benami Transactions^f,rohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floc r Aay'akar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, lyderabad- 500004

¶417

3 Taragala Pras rd, S/o Taragala Babu Rao, D No 7. 10 i, Ya Javalli Village, Kalindindi Mar lal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh - {t it44.

¶418

),1

¶419

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶420

.RESPONDENTS

¶421

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constilution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Orde:t OCA/IVDS/347l2021- PBPT d1.21 .04.2022 issued by the 1st respondent as h,eing arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶422

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶423

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying tlrat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MD 5134712021- PBPT dt. 2110412022 by the l"trespondent.

¶424

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMI- AM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶425

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. I{ARASIMHA SHARMA, S.(). FOR INCOME TAX

¶426

Counsel forthe Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICIToR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶427

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -

¶428

WRIT PETITION NO: 35153 OF 2022

¶429

Between:

¶430

Nexus Well-Hope Agritech International Ltd.,^(Represented by its Additional Director) D.No.8- 1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Shaikpet Nala, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500008

¶431

...PETITIONER

¶432

AND

¶433

The Adjudicating Authority, (SAFEM(FOP )A and NDPSA), Shastri Bhavan, 4th Floor, New Building Complex, No.26, H;:ddows Road, Chennai-600006

¶434

¶435

Assistant Cc rrmissioner of lncome T'ax, (lrriti;rtrn: Olficer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Fl,ror, Aavakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶436

lmmaneni Ra nakrishna, S/o lmmaneni Subba Rao, ll No 46, Yadavalli Village, Kalinc ndi [,4andal, Krishna District, Andhra Prarie slr - 521344

¶437

Union of lndi ,^(Represented by Secretary^(Revenue )r, North Block, New Delhi

¶438

Petition unde Adicle 226 of the Constitution of lnCra pray ng that in the circumstances stat( I in the affidavit filed therewith, thr: tliglh^,lourt may be pleased to issue a r appropriate writ, order or direction i1 nalure of writ of mandamus declar rg the impugned Order OCA/t\tt)l;/346,'2021- PBPT dt.21 .04.2022 issue by the 1st respondent as being arbitrar'/ illegtal, violative of principles of natural uslice and without authority of law anc l;r t irsice the same.

¶439

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶440

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praying that in the <;ircunst;rnces stated in the affidavit filed in upport of the petition, the High Court tna 7 be^pleased to stay the operation of lre impugned Order No. OCA/tvlDSl'.,16t20:11- PBPT dt. 21 .04.2022 by the 1 t respondent.

¶441

Counsel for the Pel tioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHIAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶442

Counsel for the Re:^pondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. I\ARASIMIJ,\ SI{ARMA, S.C' FOR lN(;OI,IE: Tl\X

¶443

Counsel for the Re:^pondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE FIE l' l:Ott ASSISTANT SOLICITOR^(;l:l'lE:RAL OF INDIA

¶444

Counsel for the Re: rlondent No.3:^--

¶445

' VRIT PETITION NO: 35154 OF 20ii'.

¶446

Between:

¶447

¶448

!q1us^^/e.]!ftg-p-e_Agritech^{lnternationalLtd., (Representedby its AdditionalDirector)} D.No.8-'1-301/86-87, Plot \q-tO_l , Shaikpet Nata, Saipriyb Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500008

¶449

...PETITIONER

¶450

AND

¶451

The_Adjudicating Authority, (SAFEN4(FOP)A and NDPSA), Shasthri Bhavan, 4th Floor, New Building Complex, No.26, H;rddows Road, Chennaj-600o06

¶452

Assistant Commissioner of lncome l ax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd FIoor, Aayakai Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶453

lmmaneni Dhanalakshmi, W/o. lmmaneni flamakrishna, H. No. 46, Yadavalli Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District, A,ndhra Pradesh - 521344

¶454

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶455

..RESPONDENTS

¶456

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order OCr/lVD 5/355/2021-PBPf d1.21 .O4 .2022 issued by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶457

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶458

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/lvlDS/355/2021-PBPT dt. 21 .04.2022 by the 1st respondent.

¶459

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMH AM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶460

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. IIARASIMHA SHARMA, S.(;. FOR INCOME TAX

¶461

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶462

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -

¶463

()

¶464

WRIT PETITION NO: 35'155 OF 202:l

¶465

Between:

¶466

Nexus Well-Hope A lritech lnternational Ltd.,^(Represented :', ts^{AdditionalDirector)} D.No.8-1-301/86-87 Plot No.101, Shaikpet Nala, Saipriyir^Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony. Hydlabad-500008

¶467

,..PETITIONER

¶468

AND

¶469

The Adjudica ing Authority, (SAFEM(FOP)li and NDPS'/,t, UTSAV, 64/1 , G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶470

A.ssistant C,r-nmissioner of lncorne I'ax, (lnitia:irt3 Cf,ricer) Benarnr Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad rFlcor, Aavakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh Hyderabad- 500004

¶471

lmmaneni lvl. lamma, W/o. lmmaneni Venkateswarlu, l-1.^rlr-r. 9-28, Main Road, Yadavalli Villi ge, Kalindini Mandal, Krishna District, An ilrr;r Pradesh-S2'l344

¶472

Union of lnd a, (Represented by Secretary (Revenu: ), North Block, New Delhi

¶473

..RESPONDENTS

¶474

Petition und Article 226 of the Constitution of lnci:r ora!ing that in the circumstances stat^.d in the affidavit filed therewith, the^-'1i3h Court may be pleased to issue i n appropriate writ, order or direction n na:ure of writ of mandamus declar ng the impugned Order OCAII'tt)3t34412021- PBPT dl.25lo3l2022 issue I by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, illerlal, violative of principles of natural iustice and without authority of law and s,:t asicle the same.

¶475

tA t\l(J. z )r zgzz

¶476

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praying that in the ,:i'r urnstances stated in the affidavit filed in upport of the petition, the High Court nay L:e pleased to stay the operation of re impugned Order No. OCA/NIDS/3 14^t2O?-1- PBPI dt. 25/0312022 by the 1 ;t respondent.

¶477

Counsel for the Pel tioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMF{AM FOR

¶478

MIS. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶479

Counsel for the Rer pondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. NARASIMII,\ SltAFtMA,

¶480

S.C. FOR lN(;Ol/lt: TIJ(

¶481

¶482

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REp. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶483

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -

¶484

WRIT PETITION NO: 35156 OF 202 2

¶485

Between:

¶486

Madabattula Srinivas, Age ears S/o Satyanarayana, D.No.1-77lA, Kommaru Village, Ganapavaram Mand al, W^55v est Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh- 534 134

¶487

...PETITIONER

¶488

AND

¶489

The Adjudicating Authority, SAFEM(FOP)A and NDPSA, Shasthri Bhavan, 4th Floor, New Building Complex, No.26 Fladdows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006

¶490

Assistant Commissioner of lncome lax, (lniliating Officeo Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3'' Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶491

Goluguri Srirama Reddy, D.No. 26-8-28,^:Shirdi Sai Apartments, 2nd Floor, Balusumudi Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh-52'1324

¶492

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶493

...RESPONDENTS

¶494

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may^be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order OCA/MDS/39012021-PBPT dt.26.O4.2022 issued by the^'1st respondent as being without^{jurisdiction,} arbitrary, illegal, violative of^principles of natural^justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶495

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶496

Petition und )r Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;i^'ctlmstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed ir support of the^petition, the High Coun^rnay be^{pleasedto stay} the operation c the impugned Order No. OCr\tMDS/39012021'PBPI d1.26.O4.2022 by tt e^'1st respondent.

¶497

Counsel for the Pr titioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMHIAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶498

Counsel for the Rr spondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. NARASIMI{r\ IiHI,RMA, S.C. FOR INC]OME TAX

¶499

Counsel for the Rr spondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FCR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERP I. OF INDIA

¶500

Counsel for the Rr ;pondent No.3:^--

¶501

WRIT PETITION NO: 35171OF 20212

¶502

Between:

¶503

Nexus Well-Hope A tritech lnternational Ltd., (Represented t4, 15 Additional Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87 Plot No.101, Shaikoet Nala. Saioriyir Resirlency. Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyde abad-500008

¶504

...PETITIONER

¶505

AND

¶506

1 . The Adjudica inq Authority, SAFEM(FOP)A and NDPSA, lihastri Bhavan, 4th Floor, New B ilding Complex, No.26, Haddows Road,^()lle 1na i-600006

¶507

Assistani C mmissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitialirrg Officer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd F oo' Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh Hyderabad- 500004

¶508

lvluddam Su rbaravamma, Wo. Venkateswarulu, ll. ().^''-68, Yadavalli Village, Kalidi rdi lvlandal, Krishna District, Andhra Prad ar;h - 5i!1 344

¶509

Union of lnd :, (Represented by Secretary (Revenu,:l), No'th Block, New Delhi

¶510

...RESPONDENTS

¶511

Petition unde Article 226 of the Constitlttion of lndie f,raying that in the circumstances statr d in the affidavit filed therewith, the lli1lh Court may be pleased to issue : r appropriate writ, order or directior in nalure of writ of mandamus declar rg the impugned Order OCA/N4DI}/354,'2021- PBPT

¶512

-):)

¶513

dt.21lO4l2O22 issued by the lst respondent as being arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶514

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶515

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MDS 135412021-PBPf dt. 2110412022 by the l^{strespondent.}

¶516

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMhIAM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶517

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. IIARASIMHA SHARMA, S.(]. FOR INCOME TAX

¶518

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICIToR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶519

Counsel for the Respondent No.3:^--

¶520

WRIT PETITION NO: 352176 0F 2022

¶521

Between:

¶522

Nexus Well-Hope Agritech lnternational Ltd.,^(Represented by its Additional Director) D.No.8-1-301/86-87, Plot No.101, Shaikpet Nala, Saipriya Residency, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Hyderabad-500008

¶523

...PETITIONER

¶524

AND

¶525

The Adjudicating Authority, (SAFEM(FOP)A and NDPSAl, Shastri Bhavan, 4th Floor, New Building Complex, No.26, H;rddows Road, Chennai-600006

¶526

Assistant Commissioner of lncome l'ax, (lnitiating Officeo Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004

¶527

Bontu Parvati, W/o. Bontu Sarveswara Rao, H. No.4-313, Mulalanka Village, Kalindindi Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh - 521344

¶528

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶529

...RESPONDENTS

¶530

¶531

Petitron unde^. Article 226 of the Constitution of lr,diz praying that in the circumstances stat, d in the affidavit filed therewith, the^-1i,3h Court may be pleased to issue i r appropriate writ, order or direction n narure of writ of mandamus declar ng the impugned Order OCAIIAD;134212021- PBPT d|.27.04.2022 issue I by the 1st respondent as being arbitrary, ille1lal, violative of principles of natural ustice and without authority of law anri sr:t asicle the same.

¶532

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶533

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praying that in the^(li.c urnslances stated in the affidavit f iled in upport of the petition, the High Court rray re l)leased to stay the operation of he impugned Order No. OCA/MD[i/342l2021-PBPT dt. 27 .04.2022 by the 1 ,t respondent.

¶534

Counsel for the Pel tioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMI'ilAM FOR

¶535

M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶536

Counsel for the Re:^pondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. IIARASIMH,{ SHAIIMA, s.c. FoR lN(;o vlt: Tl\x

¶537

Counsel for the Ret poncient No. 4: SRI B. friiUKHERJEE Fi[:f^r i:Oti ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENEFllil. OF l\DlA

¶538

Counsel for the Rer oondent No.3:^--

¶539

'VRIT^{PETITIONNO: 3521.79OF 20i".1'.}

¶540

Between:

¶541

Gummala Srinivasa lao, S/o Srirama Murthy, D.No. 2-125, S. h.onclepudu Village, Ganapavaram Mand l, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesr' 5341110

¶542

AND

¶543

The Adjudicat 19 Authori ty, (SAFEM(FOP)A and NDtr{ir), Shasthri Bhavan, 4th Floor, Ne' r Building Compiex, No.26 Haddoms i1,):r Nungambakkam, Chennai-600⁽ 16

¶544

Assistant Cc nnrissioner of lncome lax, (lnitiati'r,1 Of icer) Benami Transactions^)rohlbition Unit, Hyderabad 2nd FIor,r Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, lyderabad- 500004

¶545

Goluguri Srira na Reddy, D.No. 26-8-28, Shirdi Sai ,A)rirtments, 2nd Floor, Balusumudi, B rimavaram, West Godavari District, AnCh'z Fradesh - 534 202

¶546

¶547

Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary^(Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi

¶548

...RESPONDENTS

¶549

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Order OCA/MDS/39112021-PBPf dt.26lo4l2o22 issued by the 1st respondent as b,eing without^{jurisdiction,} arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural^justice and without authority of law and set aside the same.

¶550

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶551

Petition unlr Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ih support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Order No. OCA/MDS/391/2021-PBPT d1.261O412022 by the^'1st respondent.

¶552

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.V. NARASIMH1AM FOR M/S. YAMMANURU SIRI REDDY

¶553

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI B. I\ARASIMHA SHARMA,

¶554

S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶555

Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶556

Counsel for the Respondent No.3:^--

¶557

WRIT PETITION NO: :13403 OF 2022

¶558

Between:

¶559

Tahera Begum, W/o. Late Md. Khaja Naseeruddin, Aged about 82, Occ.House-Wife, R/o. H.No. 2-5-107, Jamkhanguda, Bhongir Town, Bhuvanagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...PETITIONER

AND

l.)

The Union )f lndia, Rep. by Principal Secretary^{Ministryof Finance,} Departrnent⁽ f Revenue. Shastri Bhavan,^41h Floor,^{ltlev'' [telhi.}

¶564

The Union c India, Rep. by Assistant Commissiotre,r^{i'/inistryof Finance,} lncome Tax I epartment. ACIT BPU, Hyderrabad.

¶565

The Adjudi* :ing Authority, Prohibition of^{BenamiPnrlretty} lrglsqctjo.^n_A91, 1988, Ciffice rf iire Competent Authority^(Safem(FOP) irn,i-N)PSA),^UTSAV, Department rf Revenue, lt/inistry of Finance, 64/1 ,^().l'1. Ohetty Road,^T. Nagar, Chen ai-600017.

¶566

The officer ot the lnitiating Officer and Assistant Comnrir;sioner of lncome{ax, Benami Trar sactions Prohibition Unit, lindhra Prad:sh, Telangana and Yanam, Dist ct of Puducherry, 3rd Floor, Aayakal 3ravar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-4

¶567

The lnitiating Officer, ltilanisha Thomar, llls, ACIT^(BPtJ), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayaki r Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶568

The Approvir I Authority, S V. Siva Prasad, lRS, ACI-|^(tlFU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayaki r Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶569

The Special nvestigation Team (SlT), Rr:p. by its r\r;sl. Commissioner of Police, Besic ' Traffic Controi Room, Opp Kalanjali, lleside L.ts. Stadium, Hyderabad.

¶570

...R ESPONDENTS

¶571

Petition undt' Article 226 of the Constitution of lnci;r praying that in the circumstances stat d in the affidavit filed therewith, the ligh Court may be pleased to issue a ^/ril, order or direction more particula'-l)r orre irr the nature of the writ of l,4andar us, declaring that the action of the 7:l tlescondent in not providing all the dc;uments to the petitioner and attaching :ll thr: properties by the Respondents lo. 3 to 5 without considering lhe ll;pres:ntation dated 04.O3.2022 made ry the petitioner to the Slh Respon,Jt:nt b/^passing the impugned Orders aled 12.04.2022 and the referring trlr) sarne to the 3rd Respondent vide R, ference No. ACIT/BPUl{ydl24(5)l89llPl 2513-200612022-23 and the consequent rl notices dated 10.05.2022, to the petit cner is bad in Law as illegal, improper, arl itrary, unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property .Transaction Act, 1988 and the rules lramed there under, violative of Principie ; of Natural Justice, voilative of Articles 14,2', and 300-A of the Constitution of lr dia, u nconstitutional and set aside th€' ;irn-re, iry holding that the procedure ado rted by the Respondents with regarc lo rseizure of all documents belonge( to the Petitioner is irrational and unsusterrnabl.: in the eye of law.

¶572

¶573

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶574

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the: High Court may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings pertaining tc, the. F.No. R-557/2022-pBpTACHENNAI which was referred to the Respondent No.3 vide Reference No. ACIT/BPU/Hydl24(5)l8SllPl12513-200612022-23, by duly suspending the .orders U/s 2+( )(b)(i) of PBPT Act,^'1988 dated 12.04.2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the abover writ petition.

¶575

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶576

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying tlrat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.7 to release the orietinal documents of the Petitioner that are stated in the affidavit in the tabular form, in order to substantiate the claims of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶577

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. MOHAN SAI FOR SRI CH. VENKAT RAMAN

¶578

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOILICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶579

SRI B. KAVITHA YADAV, S.C. FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

¶580

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI B. NARI\SIMHA SHARMA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶581

Counsel forthe Respondent No.7: GP FOR HOME

¶582

WRIT PETITION NO: 23A70 OF 2021

¶583

Between:

¶584

Mr. Devineni Avinash, S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekhar, D.No.48-4-17, Ashok Garden, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna^- 52O 004 Andhra Pradesh

¶585

...PETITIONER

¶586

AND

¶587

1 Union of lndia, Represented by its Se(:retary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi^-110001

¶588

¶589

Assistant Cc nmissioner of lncome Tax, Benami^{'fransaction(Prohibition)} Unit, Room N r. 318, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Bashe:rbagn, Hyderabad

¶590

tr/ulakalapalll Tirupati Rao, S/o. Venkata Narayara 5()-1 1-3/98, Ayyappa Nagar, Gund la, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

¶591

(Respondent^.,1o. 3 is not a necessary party)

¶592

...FIESPONDENTS

¶593

Petition undr r Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lrrdil craving that in the circumstances stat rd in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hrgh Court may be pleased to issue a vrit, direction or order more particular y ir lhe nature of a writ of mandamus de ;laring the Show Cause Notice beirring No. ITB A/C oMlFt17 t202',-22t1 )35259415(1)dated C2lCgl2lt21 issued b'1, Respondent No. 2 under Section 24 (1 t of the Prohibition of Benami Property^{--rarrsa(lions} Act, 1988 as being void, illeg al, arbitrary, without lurisdiction, violat ve of Articles 14 and 20(1 ) of the Constit rtion of lndia and consequently set asi,l: the s.rme.

¶594

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶595

Petition und€ Section 151 CPC praying tl"lat in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed ;r suppoit of the petition, thr: High CoLr rnay bo pleased to suspend the Sl rw Cause Nolice bearing No. f^{'AA|COM|Fl1712021-} 2211035259415(1 ) r ated 02logl2o21 issued by Flespondent llo 2.

¶596

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶597

Between:

¶598

"i . Union of lnt a, Represented by its Se<;retary, Depirrtrrent of Revenue, lvlinistry of Fir ance, North Block, New Delhi -1 10001

¶599

Assislant Co nmissioner of lncome Tax, Benami '-rl rsacti,)n (Prohibition) Unit, Room N r. 318, 3rd Floor, AayakarBhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶600

...PETITIONERS/tlt:l;F'ON DENT No.1 & 2

¶601

AND

¶602

1 Shri. Deviner Avinash, S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekhz r. ).No.48-4-17, Ashok Garden Guni Cala, Vijayawada, Krishna - 520 0O4 Andr a PraCesh

¶603

....RESPONDEN..A1'RIT PETITIONER

¶604

2 Shri lVulakala rally Tirupati Rao, S/o. Venkata Narayanir 5C"11-3198, Ayyappa Nagar, Gundr a, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

¶605

-19

¶606

.,RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶607

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying tlrat in the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 221091202.1^pas:;ed in l.A.No. 1 of 2021 W.P.No. 23O7O of 2021 in the interest of^justice.

¶608

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. ROHAN ALOOR FOR M/S. R.S. ASSOCIATES

¶609

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI B. MUKI{ERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICIToR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶610

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI B. NARI\SIMHA SHARMA,

¶611

S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶612

WRIT PETITION NO: 234,97 OF 2021

¶613

Between:

¶614

Mr. Devineni Avinash, S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekhar, D.No.4B-4-17, Ashok Garden, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna - 520 004 Andhra Pradesh

¶615

...PETITIONER

¶616

AND

¶617

Union of lndia, Represented by its Seoretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi^-1 10001

¶618

Assistant Commissioner, of lncome Tax Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Unit, Room No. 3'18, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bh:rwan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶619

tMr. Abdul Shajid, S/o. and L/R of Late Shri Akkinapalli Durga Rao D.No.3226-59, Near S.R.R. and C.V.R. College, Shivani Tea Stall Building, Ivlachavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna - 520 004

¶620

Mr. Dharmavarapu Ramesh, S/o. and L/R of Late Shri D. Siva Nageswara Rao, D.No.49-3-10, Gandhiji Colony, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh

¶621

Mr. Yerramsetti Ramana, S/o. Shri Y. Appalakonda, D. No. 53-1-216, Machavaram Police Station, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004

¶622

Mr. Anne Venkata Siva Prasad, S/o. Shri lt. Ramachandra Rao Flat No. DS13, Model Villa, Near Ramavarappadu Ring, Vijayawada, Krishna - 521 108

¶623

Ms. Boddu Durga, Wife and L/R of Late Shri Boddu Venkateswara Rao, D.No. 49-3-11611 , Gandhiji Colony, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna - 520 004 (Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are not necessary parties)

¶624

+()

¶625

...F ESPONDENTS

¶626

Petition undr r Article 226 o'f lf'e Constitution of lnciir l)ra)/ing that n the circumstances stat ,d in the affidavit filed therewith. the High Court may be pleased to issue a /rit, direction or order more particularly i the lature of a writ of mandamus ieclaring the Show Cause l.lolice bearing No. ffBAlCol\nlFl17l2o'. 1-2211035261600(1 ) dated 021091202'1 ssred by Respondent No. 2 under Sectic t 24 (1) of the Prohibition r:f Benami^r operly Transactions Act, 1988 as being roid, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdicticr , violative of Articles 14 and 20(1 ) of the lonstitution of lndia and consequently se: asidr: the same.

¶627

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶628

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praying tlrat in the :irr Lrnst,lnces stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, ther High Coul may be pleased to suspend the Sh,w Cause Notrce bearing No. l1B,\lCOl{ilFl17120212211035261600(1 )⁽ 3ted 0210912021 issued by Flespondert No. 2.

¶629

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶630

Between:

¶631

1 . Union of lni a, Represented by its Sec;retary, Dt:p,21vn".1 of Revenue, lilinistry of Fir rnce, North Block, New Delhi -1 10001

¶632

Assistant Cor rmrssioner, of lncome Tax Benami Trirrrsaction (Prohibition) Unit, Room N . 318, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Bashtrr rbagl-r, Hyderabad ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NO,1 & 2

¶633

AND

¶634

L Mr. Devineni Avinash, S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekha', I).I'1o.48-4-17, Ashok Garden, Gunz .iala, Vijayawada, Krishna - 520 004 An,ihra^rrarjesh ...RESPONDEII'I'/vvRI PETITIONER

¶635

Ir,4r Abdul Shr jid, S/o. and L/R of Late Shri Akkinapalli DLrrga Rao D.No.3226-59, Near S.R.R. and C.V.R. College, Shivani^rr:a Stall Building, Machavaram, ,/ijayawada, Krishna - 520 004

¶636

? ntlr l-)ha rmc,,, ranrr Prrnach Qin rnd I /P nf I era ehri I' Q rra ltlrnocrrrrrris I ruyvuriui u Rao, D.No. 4E 3-10, Gandhiji Colony, Gunadala, Vijayerv rda, F.rishna, Andhra Pradesh

¶637

N,4r. Yerramst iti Ramana, S/o Shri Y. Appalakor,da D. No. 53-1-216, l/achavaram^I olice Station, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Kri;irn,r, Andhra Pradesh - 520 004

¶638

¶639

Mr. Anne Venkata Siva Prasad, S/o. Shri lt. Ramachandra Rao Flat No. DS'13, t/odel Villa, Near Ramavarappadu Ring, Vijayawada, Krishna - 521 108

¶640

tt/s. Boddu Durga, Wife and L/R of Late Shri Boddu Venkateswara Rao, D.No. 49-3-1 16/1 , Gandhiji Colony, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna - 520 004 (Respondent Nos 3 to 7 are not necessary l)arties)

¶641

...RESPONDENTS

¶642

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying tl-rat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 30-09-2021 passed in l.A.No. 1 of 2021 in W.P.No. 23497 of 2021 in the interest of^justice.

¶643

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. ROHAN ALOOR FOR M/S. R.S. ASSOCIATES

¶644

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI B. MUKI'{ERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶645

SRI T. SURYA KARAN REDDY, ADDITIOI,IAL SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶646

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI B. NARASIMHA SHARMA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶647

WRIT PETITION NO: 23!j01 OF 2021

¶648

Between:

¶649

Mr. Devineni Avinash, S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekl"rar, D.No.48-4-17, Ashok Garden, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna 520 004 Andhra Pradesh

¶650

...PETITIONER

¶651

AND

¶652

Union of lndia, Represented by its Ser;retary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi^-110001

¶653

Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Eenami Transaction (Prohibition), Unit, Room No. 318, 3rd Floor, AayakarBhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶654

Mr. Kunchala Prasad, 44-15-138., Lenin Nagar, Gundala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, lndia (Respondent No. 3 is not a necessary party)

...RESPONDENTS

of mandamus d:claring the Show Cause Nctir;e bearing No. ITBAICOI$|F1171202 2211035261179(1) dated 02.(t9.,1021 issued by Respondent No. 2 t rder Section 24 (1) o'f the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1)88 as being void, illegal, arbitrary, ,vilhor-rt jurisdiction, violative of Articles t t and 20(1) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same.

¶659

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶660

Petltion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcrrrrstances stated in the affidavit filed in ;upport of the petition, the High CoLrl nay be pleased to suspend the Shr w Cause Notice bearing No.|]-E|A/CCIM/F117120212211035261179(1)dr \ed02.09.2021 issued by Flespondent I'J(, .2.

¶661

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶662

Between:

¶663

Union of Indi, Represented by its Secretary, Decartrrent of Revenue, l,4inistry of Fin; rce, North Block, New Delhi -1 10001

¶664

Assistant Com rissioner of lncome Tax (lnitiating Offic,:r) Bt>natri Transaction Prohibition Ur t, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bha Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 5⁾⁰⁰⁰⁴ ^/€rn,

¶665

....PETITIIONERSiREStIONDENT NO.1 & 2

¶666

AND

¶667

Mr. Devineni 'vinash, S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekhar E.No.43-4-17, Ashok Garden. Gunar ala. Vijayawada, Krishna 520 004 Andhnr^)radesh

¶668

....RESPONDEN T WRIT PETITIONER

¶669

Ivlr. Kunchala I rasad, 44-15-138., Lenin Nagar, Gundale , Vilayawada, Andhra Pradesh, lndia

¶670

...RESf'Otll)l:t' T/F ESPONDENT

¶671

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrr:ttrrstances stated in the affidavit filed in ;upport of the petition, the High CoLrl rlay be pleased to vacate the interim or, er dated 30-09-2021 passed in l.A.No. 1 of 2021 in W.P.No. 23501 of 2021 in the nterest of justice.

¶672

Counsel for the Peti oner: Mr. ROHAN ALOOR FOR M/S. lt S. r\SS,OCIATES

¶673

¶674

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI B. MUKIlERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICIToR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶675

counsel for the Respondent No.2: sRl B. NARI\SIMHA SHARMA,

¶676

S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶677

WRIT PETITION NO: 23ai66 OF 2021

¶678

Between:

¶679

Mr. Devineni Avinash, S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekhar, D.No.48-4-17, Ashok Garden, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna - 520 0O4 Andhra Pradesh

¶680

,..PETITIONER

¶681

AND

¶682

Union of lndia, Represented by its Ser:retary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -1 10001

¶683

Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Unit, Room No. 318, 3rd Floor, AayakarBhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶684

Sudagani Malleswara Rao, S/o.Yeraiah 49-3-115/B, Gandhiji Colony, Gundala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

¶685

...RESPONDENTS

¶686

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the Show^(lause Notice bearing No. ITBA/COM/F/I712021-2211035260426.(1) dated 02.09.2021 issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 2a () of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as being void, illegal, arbitrary, without^{jurisdiction,} violative of Articles 14 and 20(1) of the Constitulion of lndia and consequently set aside the same.

¶687

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶688

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the: High Court may be pleased to

¶689

-tl

¶690

suspend the Sh >w Cause Notice bearing No. l1'BA1COM1Fl17l2}2l2211035260426(1)d rted 02.09 2021 issued by Respondent .,. 2.

¶691

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶692

Between:

¶693

The Union of lndia. Represented by its Secretary (Fev:nue) Department of Revenue, I,4ir stry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -'l 10001

¶694

The Assistat: Commissioner of lncome Tax (lniti.rtin,l Officer) Benami Transaction^)rohibition Unit, Hyderabad, 3rd FIror, Aavakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh Hyderabad

¶695

...PETITIONERS/ttl:liF'ONDENT No.1 & 2

¶696

AND

¶697

'1. Shri Devinen Avinash, S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekhar, i.No.48-4-17, Ashok Garden Gun; Cala, Vijayawada, Krishna - 520 004 Andla Pradesh

¶698

....RESPONDEI'I'TAA/RIT PETITIONER

¶699

Shri Sudagar i N,,lalleswara Rao, S/o.Yeraiah 49-3-1 15/8, Gandhiji Colony, Gundala, Vila awada, Andhra Pradesh

¶700

...RESPC I\ tI: NT/RESPONDENT

¶701

Petition unde Section 151 CPC praying that in the :irr:u rnst,a nces stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High Cou't ntay be^pleased to vacate the interim o der dated 30-09-2021^passr:d in l.A.No I <':f 2X21 in W.P.No. 23566 of 2021 in th, interest of^justice.

¶702

Counsel for the Pe1 tioner: Mr. ROHAN ALOOR FOR M1S, tl.S, ASSOCIATES

¶703

Counsel for the Re pondent No.1: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REF. l:OFl ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENETU\I. OF INDIA

¶704

Counsel for the Re: pondent No.2: SRI B. NARI\SIMHA SI-lARlvlA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX

¶705

VRIT PETITION NO: 23575 OF 2();!^I

¶706

Between:

¶707

Mr. Devineni Avinas r, S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekhar, D.No.4€-l-l7, Ashok Garden, Gunadala, Vijayawa( a, Krishna - 520 004 Andhra Pradesh

.1-\

-..PETITIONER

AND

1 p.lign of .lndia, Represented b.y its_Se(;retary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -1 10001

¶712

Assistant Commissio-ner_of lncome Tax, Benami Transaction (prohibition) Unit, Room No. 318, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhilwan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶713

Kadiyary Dhana Babu, 45-17-7, Kummari Bazar, Gundala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

¶714

(Respondent No. 3 is not a necessary party)

¶715

...RESPONDENTS

¶716

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the Show^()ause Notice bearing No. ITBA/COM/F/1712021-2211035260794(1) dated^()2.09.2021 issued by Respondent No. 2 under Section 24 (1) of the Prohibition r;f Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as being void, illegal, arbitrary, without^{jurisdiction,} violative of Articles 14 and 2O(1) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same.

¶717

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶718

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying tlrat in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tho High Court may be pleased to suspend the Show Cause Notice bearing No.^{|TBAICOI\AIFl1712021-} 2211035260794(1) dated 02.09.2021 issued by Flespondent No. 2.

¶719

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶720

Betlveen:

¶721

'1 . Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary (Revenue), Department of Revenue, Minlstry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi^-1 1 0001

¶722

The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax_ (lnitiating Officer), Benami Transaction Prohibition Unit, Hyderabarl, 3'' Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶723

....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT No.1 & 2

¶724

AND

¶725

-1('

¶726

Shri Devineni Avinash. S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekha-, t).1'1o.48-4-17, Ashok Garden, Guna^jala, Vijayawada, Krishna - 520 004 An,lltra lrradesh

¶727

.,.RESPONDENITWRI'T PETITIONER

¶728

Shri Kadiyam lhana Babu, 45-17-7, Kumrnari Bazar, C undara, Vijayawada, Andhra Prade h

¶729

...RESPO \ lt: l'lT/{TESPONDENT

¶730

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the citc.,lnrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to vacate the interim or ler dated 30-09-2021 passed in l.A.No. 1 of 2{t21 in W.P.No. 23575 of 2021 in the interest of^justice.

¶731

Counsel for the Peti ioner: Mr. ROHAN ALOOR FOR M/S. R.l;. ASI]OCIATES

¶732

Counsel for the Res rondent No.1: SRI B. MUKI{ERJEE REI) FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL CF ll',lDlA

¶733

Counsel for the Res >ondent No.2: SRI B. NARI\SIMHA SHI$lfvlA, s.c. FoR lNcoME^*lu(

¶734

The Court macle the^following: COMMON ORDER

¶735

THE HON'BLE THEEI{II IUSl'ICE UIJAT BHIryAN

¶736

AND

¶737

N'BLE R I u w.P.Nos. 33191. 33195. 33198. 33199. 33203, J44s4. 34670. 34676134687.34igl 1/.?(( 3t700 ldcno 14R0 1 1410? 34R01 1ql)q2^jqOq'1 113- tq13 2 3 5'134 35144.35146. 35153. 351.54. i5155.35156. 35171. 352'16, 352'19 ail.33403 ot2022:

¶738

2307 0. 23497. 23501. 23566. 2357 5 ot 2021

¶739

COMMON ORDER, (Pff the Hon'b/, the ChifJattu Uljal Bhryaa)

¶740

This order u.i1l drspose of the abovc l>atch of r-vrit petitions.

¶741

q€

¶742

We have hcard '[r. C.V.Narsirnham, i\lr. G.Nlohan Sai ancl Mr. Rohan Aloor, learned counsel for the peudoners; N,lr. B.Narsimha Sarma, Iearned collnsel lor rhe rcsponclen[s Incorne Tax Deparuncnt, and Mr, B.Mukhcrice, Iearned counsel r:cprescnting lealned Assistanr Solicitor Gcncral of India appearing lbr Union of India

¶743

For the sake of convenience, rve divide the above batch of writ peddons into three groups in the following manner:

¶744

Gtoup A:- W.P.Nios.23070 ,23497,23501,23566,23515 of 2021. \I

¶745

Group B:- W.P.Nos.33191 ,33195, 331.98, 33199, 33203,34454, 3 467 0, 3 4(7 6, 34687, 3 469 1, 3 41 55, 34t 99, 34800, 3480 1, 34802, 34803, 35092, 35093, 35113, 35132, 35134,35144, 35146, 351.53, 35154, 35155, 35156, 3517 1., 3527 6, 3527 9 of 2022

¶746

Group C:- W.P.No.33403 of²⁰²²

¶747

....2..:

¶748

4, In tl c flrst batch o[ cases^r.r., Group^{A, the challengemade is to} the sh,rr,"'^,r:,use ni)tices datcd^{02.09.2021 irsu:rl bv thc ;\ssistant} Commisstc icr o I incomc^'t ax bcing Iniuaunl;^{O ffi,:er,Benami} 'fransactiot s ('Prchrbition) U t, I l1'derabad undeL lir <:r-ion 24(1) of thc Prohibirion o1' Renami Propcrq,'^{'l'ransacoons} Ar:r^1!t88 @nefly^'the Benarui Prt :t:rn, .\ct' hcreina[tcr)

¶749

In th r second brtch o[ 625g-s z'.r., Gtoup I]. th,: :ha[enge is to the ordcl prsst : lrr Llrr, a.ipLrlir:arrng rtutltoriq unt el S:, r,rn 2(r(3, o1' thc Ilcrr;rnj I)rc^'r rL,^-.r. l horrgh thc d:rres rr:e diflcrc r rr eac r of thc rvrit petitions, ir the lead case o[ this group being W.|'].\ o,33i91 of 2022. the ordet pz ;scd bv rhc adjudicaring authority is dat,:c 15 03.2022

¶750

¶751

In th, last case zlr.. Group C, the challenge har; been lade tr: the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the Commissiont:r of Income Tax, who is alr r the irutiating officer of the Br:na mr^{'i'ransactions} (?rohibition Unit, Hyderabad under Section 2a(a)rb)f i) of rhe Benami Propetty Ac

¶752

iror tl : sake of convcnicncc, let us^{rake\X/.P.|.11).3,1191} of 2022 as the lea<l case

¶753

Iror the sake oFconvenrencc, lct us take V/.I'}.No.33191 of 2022 as the lead case.

¶754

B. In this case, show cause nc>ricc under Section 24(1) oI the Benami Properry .r\ct dated 30.12.2019 was issuecl to the penrioner N{/s. Ncopride Pharmaceutrcals Lirnitcd by the r\ssistant^{(-ommrssioner} of Income Tax/Inidating Officcr. [n senal No.3 o[ rhe statement forming part of the shorv causc norice, tirc Lrc n'lrni propcrry u.r., the subjcct matter of benarm rrlnsaction rvirs dcscribecl as r.rnclcr

¶755

"'l he rnoveablc pr()p('rl\ l)cLr)g^()l,5l,t(J shrrr-cs ol \l/s (()lrrlJ( fh.iIIr,.j.( rt.:'i. .. .'u,l \.'r" 1.. 1.-i.'r'", allotted rn F\ 201+ lr

¶756

Proceeds thercoi bcing correspondrng "l rxcd .'\sscr" ro the rune of c<luivaleot amor.rrtt accluucd as against rhe share capital introduced in Lhe books of N4/s Ncopricle Pharmaccutrcals L,imrted during the FY 2014-15 so routed through benami transaction.'

¶757

Assistant Commrssioner of lncome Tax/Iniaaring OfFrcer,.while call-ing upon the petitioner to show cause, passed an order under subsection (2) of Section 18 and sub.scction (3) of Scction 24 of rhe Benami Ptoperty Act pruvisiurrally auzrclurrg thc aforesaid properry for a ,iperiod of 90 days from the last datc of rhe month in whrch the shou, cause notice was issued i.e., 30.11.2019, furthcr dirccdng that the

¶758

¶759

¶760

attachcd pro )crq, shoulcl nr:r^l)(r ttxnsf(:rred or c()nv:rt,:d or^{Jisposed ot} moved in ar^r rnann€r u'hatsocver irntil or unless^sP, cifi:allv permitted to do so by t ,c undcrsigncd

¶761

There: l.tcr, tl.rc afcrresaid authontv passed ,)1dc; iated 18.03.2021 under Sectio 2ag)Q)(l\ of thr Ilcrranri l)ropcr6 A,:t.^..s pcr the said Ordcr, tht 1.:i< ,. i.rofi:il ilii.rclirrr( ni |1 rlr(' propertv .'i: , ( rl inLrcrl tril strch timc 6r-1cr ry l,usserl 1ri :ltu r,i1rr,1r, r1n1t itLrtll,)lr\ 11⁽ I Sc:riorr 2(r (3) o[ the Renam l)ropcrr,, .\ct

¶762

Finally alter noticc an(l he;rrrng, ad;uclic:,un3 l uihoriw passed order dated 2 .0..2)22 undcr Scctrorr 26(11 ctf^t:hr: Bt r:r:i Pti,pert,,Act. By the said^, rclcr, the adludicarrng authoriry hcld th rt thc movable propert)' is benauri propcrtv being subjecr nr: t:,:r of benami transactjon u drrn the mcaning of Section 2(!))(c) ot th,: Benami Propettl Act. Oonsequendy, the provisional attachmr:r t ,r::det has been confirmcd

¶763

l---

¶764

12, At this stage, we ma): nore that in the yea ' 2t)16. Benami Transacuons I rohibition) Amcndmcnr Act, 2016 was e,r rc]ed to amend the Benamr Pr, pcrr1, ,\ct

¶765

We rnay mention that IJenami^{'I'ransactions} (?rohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 Qricfl1 'the i\rnendment Act' hereinafter) had received the assent of rhe Presidenr on 25.10.2016 whereafter, it was notified in the Gazette on 01.11.2016

¶766

In all thc writ petiuons l;cil.rrc us, thc primary challenge made is that the transacdons u,hich halc Lccn classiflcd bv rhe respondents as benami transacdons and thc pr()l)crlv acct-ued there[rom, whicl-r have been classifiecl bv the responderLs as bcnami properry, were acquired prior to 25.10.2016 or 0i.11.201(r. Sr:ch a transacrion could nor have been classiFred as benami transecLlorr br, retroac vely applying rhe law enacted in the year 2016. l"or exan-rple, in {,'.P.No.33191 of 2022, rhe

¶767

alleged benami propertics have been menrioned as follows:

¶768

"The moveable ptopcrg bcing 97,500 sharcs of M/s Neopride Pharmaceudcals Limited worth Rs.9,75,000/allotted in FY 2014-15 on 08.01.2015.

¶769

Proceeds thereoI bcine corresponding "Fixed Asset" added during rhe FY 2014 15 for lts.4,18,33,534/- rn the form of "Immovable Properry admcasorng 41790 s<1. mts. In Sy.Nos.49P, 50P and 51P, PIot No.24E in laout T-1 in Lalamkodur (v) regrstered vide doc. Number 2717/2015 of SRO Yelamanchili", to the rune ol Rs.9,75,000/- equivalent to the share capital routed through benami transaction aod introduced in rhe books of i{/s Neopride Pharmaceudcals Limited dunng the FY 20 14- 1 5.'

¶770

¶771

()

¶772

15.^'l'hus, hc -.trarcs ur:rc allotrctl on 08.01.20 l5 rrr( tlle lixecl assets accrued thcr, tiom finds placc in the books of ac,:ourt ,luting the financial year 2014-201 5 i.r., being prior to 25.10.201(,,>r 01.i .2016

¶773

Thc tsl rr' beFcrre Lrs is nr., Iongcr res inlegra not o:r '- in rierv of dre law laid dorvr lrl this Cr-.rrrt in Nexus Feeds Linrite d '. thc Assistant Conrmrssion rr of Incorne^'I :rx', but in vieu, r,I rr,: Lt.r' tleclarcd b1' rhe Sulticnre^r .r)iir[ rT] tlrrion ol'Inrlia v. Ganpati De r^(,)rn Pvt. Ltcl.2

¶774

¶775

\lr. B. r'rrrsrrrl)a :aur'r,r. lirrncd counsel iol1.,: r-c:p,r!rdents lncrrttlc^'l :lr i )(-P;tf lllr(,|. riirLitl .tt:litlo,,,, lt:c]11nU tlltt t Vtr',,, r,I t]lt decision rcnd, r'r:tl bv thc Strpt:rre^(.our:t in Union of InCia v. Ganpati Dealcorn Pv. Ltd. (2 supra), the matter stan(ls c)rered. however subruts that cspondents arc contemplating Frling f^- revic,r' petiuon before the Su rrcme Court seckins ter.iew of the decision in Union of Inciia r'. Gar:;ati I)eaicom Pr.t. Lt<i. (2 supra).^'Iher e [ore, ..rearing of the present ba ch o[ cases may be dcferred for some tinrr

¶776

We are rnable to accept the submissions made b', learned counsel for thc tespo rde nts for 'rlre sin-rplc Leason tirat tir,: t.c<:isic rr of the

¶777

! zozzlsl'rut zez

¶778

2 2022 SCC Online ic 1061

¶779

Suprcmc Court in Union ol lndia r,. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (2 supra) is binding on all Courts, Tr:ibrrnals and -\uthontics throughout the counuy. Hearing cannot be defcrred on rhe ground that respondents are contempladrrg to 6le a review peurion for review of the aforesaid decision. As a matter of facr, \'c hncl that alter thc adjudication order was passed on 25 03.2tJ22 in W.P.No.33191 of 2022, para i8A was inscrtcd by thc adjudicarir)s alrthority raking note of the decision oI tlls CourL in Nexus Fct'ds Linrired r,. thc Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1 supr:al. Houcvcr, the adjudicaung authority proceeded to deci,.lc <)n merir-s u,irh the observation that the lcgal questron as to rctrospec vl L' Vl: -il - 'IS prospcctiviry oI thc Amendment r\ct of 2016 was pending befcrrc the Suprcme Court

¶780

In Nexus Feeds Limitcd r'. thc Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1 supra), this Court hcld as l,ollorvs

¶781

From the conspectus of the discussions made above, it is apparent that Secrion 2 (9) (A) and Seccioo 2 (9) (C) are substandvc provisions creating the of[ence of benami transaclion. These two provisions are significandy and substantially wider than the de6nition o[ benam.i transaction under Section 2 (a) of the unamended 19BB Act. Therefore, Section 2 (9) (A) and Sect.ion 2 (9) (C) can ooly have

¶782

¶783

¶784

e ffec prospcctive11,.^(.r:ntral Governrrcnt h,rs n:,t Frctl tire c Lte oI coming into force oI the r\mr'r'rdrrcr,t AcL of ')16^{as 01.ii.2i.)i6.Therefore, dre;e tw()} ptov .ions cannot bc apphed to a tmnsacLi,rrr '.r' hiclr took place prior to 0 t. i 1.2016.Admittcdl'.,. n tht: pres( 1t case, the transaction in quesUon i; daterl 14.1i 201 1 . That beins the posiuon, rve I a r",e no hesit uon to hold that the shorv cause nr)tic(: datcr 30.12.201 9, 1.lrovisional attachrnerrt c,rde : rlater 31.12.21)19 and the irnpile.nc'il i,rde: d atc( .li).03.2021 arc null and void bt rrr,l u itholrr lu^risr rctiori. Consccltrendy, the impugncrl or d : i: scl aside .rnd q uas hecl.

¶785

20.^'I'hus. I om the abovc, it ts evident that thrs^(-,;LrLt looi: lhe vierv that Secrion 2 9)(A) and 2(9)(C) of the Act inserted Lv the Areendmcnt Act o[ 2016 a : prospective in nature because thesc nu'o lrrvi:,ions ha','e significantly nd substanually wrdened the drfiriLtc r.r o[^'benami Itansa.ction' tl rn as was thete in the unamended Berrz rri Prc,oerw Act of 1988

¶786

21 . Taking rote o f dre fact that Central Governmcn^.ra,l nr>ti6cd the date of comrn into fotceof the Amendment Acr of 201 i:s 0t.11.2016, this Court h, ld that these rwo provisions canoor c l applied to a 7 transaction, u rich took place prior to 01.11.2016. rr that case, the

¶787

¶788

[ansacdon was dated 1+.12.2U11. lircrctirre, the shou, causc noucc, provisional attachment ordcr as rvc:ll as the adjudicating order werc declared nu[1 and void berng u,irhoLrt^jurisdicuon and conscquendy, quashed.

¶789

In Union of India r,. Ganpati Dcalcom Pvt. Ltd. (2 supra), which went to the Suprcmc^(-oLrrt l-r'onr a clecision oI rhe Calcutta High Court, the question,^,,r,htch rl;Ls c,rn.:.itrcrl br tirc .-Suprcnre Cou:t rvas rvircther the Benanl Proptrtv \ct ii. .rircnrlcd Irr Lhc,\mencinrcnt Acr of 2016 has a prospccrir.c citcct : \'lrilr e\lnnlrlrrr{r thrs question, Supreme Court u,r:nt Lnro lhi: c()irs lLrlrr)Jriilrn r,f rhe or:iginal Act u.a., Benami Properry Act. Ar thc tlrst plur t, it '"vas hcLd as [ollorvs:

¶790

¶791

¶792

The simple quesoon addressed by the counsel appearing for both sidcs is whether the amended 2016 Act is retroacdve or prospecuve. .\nsrvering rhe above question is inevitablv tied to an intermediate questioo as to whether the 1988 Act was ?onstitutional in the firsr place. The arguments addressed by the Union of India hinges on the fact that the 19BB Act was a valid substafltive law, which required only some gap filling through the 2016 Act, to ensure that sufficient procedural safeguards aod mechanisms ^te present to enforcc the lau,.

¶793

::10::

¶794

"\cc,^{rcling. to rhc Lnion o[ lndia,the 2016 r\c r.,asa} rnetr g.rp llLlinl crt lci.e.

¶795

lowcver. upon studying the prov:srcrrs r,rl the 988 ,-\ct, we find that there are qu( s i )ns of Iegal n, and co ns rr rudonaliry which arise vvirh r:..pect to Sr ctions 3 and 5 of 1988 Act. The answe :s t:, suclr clues ions cannol bc assumcd in favr rr of cons itiltionalitl, simply bccause the sanie^\r/:!s levcr clues roncci bctr,rc thc Court o[ larv. We art: c:lrLil in ; tha[ .',,t' arc 11,)t spcrkinq of the pre:,rrrrrf t^()r] i)[ cons rlrrtionaLl\ es a tnattcr of burden ,r( 1116111. I{ath r. r,"c are indicating thc assumpdon t:ilic r bi dr,: Iinir r :Ls ro Llrc^yrLiditv oI these provrsron; irr lh,r pres, nr ll[galion. Such assurnption cannot Le rnrd,r u'her tiris Court is callcd upon to answer rvhetlr:r thr: irnpr yccl provisions are attracted [ ) thosr: trans LCrLons thar have taken piace before 2016

¶796

-,\fter labotate ,Jcliberauorr, Suprcme l,orLr: camc to tlte conclusion th r Secrion 1(criminal provision), Sccti,,rrr illa) 1rlefiruuon clause) and Se tron 5 (confiscarion proceedings) of rh,: Ber am. Properry 1\ct arc or.erl lrroad, chspropo rtionately harsh and rrthout adequate safeguards.^' hough such provisions were in a d,)r.ra tt ,:ondition, nonethelcss, S tprcnre Court declared Sections 3 anc' J ,t' the Bcnami

¶797

::ll::

¶798

Property Act as unconsrirurional fronr incepuon. It was held as

¶799

follows:

¶800

From the above, Secdon 3 (criminal provision) read with Section 2(a) and Section 5 (confiscauon proceedings) of the 1988 Act are overly broad, disproporrionately harsh, and operate without adcquate safeguards in place. Such provisions were stillborn lau'and nevcr uti[zed in the first place. In this tighr, rhis Courr finds rhat Secdons 3 and 5 o[ rhe 1988 r\ct were unconstirutional from their inception. 24. Conrinuing rvith the deliberarion, Suprcrnc Court observed that once.Sections 3 and 5 of the Benami Propcrn -\ct u,ere declared as Llnconstitutional, it would mean that the Amcndrnent Act of 2016 would in effect create new provisions and new oflcnces as dre offcnces under Section 3(1) for the transactions entered into bcrween 05.09.1988 (when the original Act received the presidenual assent) and 25.10.2016 (when the Amendment Act of 2016 was nodfied), the law cannot retroacdvely invigorate a still-bom criminal offence. Thereafter, it was categorically held that the Amendment Act of 20i6 containing criminal provisions \ would be applicable only prospectively. Supreme Court held as fo[ows: In the case at hand, the 2016 Act containing the crirninal provisions is appJicable only prospcctively, as the relevant Secdons o f thc p re-arncndment 1988 Act

¶801

:: 12::

¶802

cont inlng the penal pror.ision, have been d,:< LLrt'd a; uncc rsrirudonal. Therefore, the questicr of cons rtrction of the 2016 Act as retroactiv. qt& th,. pena provisions under Sections 3 or 53, do:s not arise

¶803

Suprcrr r Court clarified tl.rat as it has held :hat cnminal

¶804

pror,rsions un er the Renami Property Act were arbilrLry rrnd incapable oI al)plicatio] . thc larv through the 2016 amenlrr(:r't < ould not rcrroactjvr'ir r r1rit, for c,rnilscation oi ti.rose uansactir:s en:creti tnto bctrveen^{(,)5.C ).1r88} ro 25.10.2016 as the sarnc \v,)rll(l amourlt to puninvc punis rnrent. [iinallv, the Supreme Court con:lu lc,d a: undet

¶805

I , r'ic,,r, oi' rhe abr,r,c discussion, rve r >1,:1 a,r unclt

¶806

a) -S cnon 3(Zt oi the unamended 198[t -\r:t ir; deck ed as unconsdtutional for being rr,rr[,:sd', arbit rLn,.

¶807

r ccordingiv, Sccdon 3(2) oi the 20irj Ac: Lrr aiscr uncc )stitutional as it is violative o[ Article I{ t ] ) o , the⁽ :rnstitudon.

¶808

b) I r rem forfeirure provision under Section 5 of' thr: unan cr<led Acr cf 1988, prior to thr' 201(, Ame rdment Act, was unconstirudonai f,tr b,:ing mani cstly ar[:irrary.

¶809

t \

¶810

::l-J::

¶811

c) The 20i6 Amendrncnt Acr u,as nor merell, procedural, rether, prescribed substantive provisions.

¶812

d) In rem forfeirure pror'rsion undcr Sccrion 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in narurc, can or-rly be appiied prospectivcly and not retroacrivcll,.

¶813

e) Concerned authorides cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscadon proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of rhe 2016 Acr, iq, 25.10.2016. As a consequence oI the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscadon proccedings shall stand quashed.

¶814

Q^{Asthis Court is not conccrned with the} constiturionalitv of such independent forfeirure proccedings contemplated undcr rhe 201.6 Amendment Act on the other grounds, the aforesaid questions are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.

¶815

From the above, it is evident that Suprerne Court l.ras dcclared that the Amendment Act of 2016 is not n-rerely proce dural but prescribes substantive provisions.^-lhcrc[orc, cl)ncerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosccution or confiscatiorr proceedings for transactions entered into prior to coming into force o[

{ t

:: IJ::

n^,,'

rirt 2[]l(r ..\r'ir( 1l..rc.t .,\cr 2.,,., 2i.11r.2016. .\s a <:o.:rc.,.t:t, ;rll such uansacri,.rns o i-,,nfiscrtion proccr:tlrngs shail stand c1u rr 1r,.d. Supreme C-ourt has alsc , i.rritled tltal tt nn lorterLure prousio r r n:lcr -iecdon 5 of the Arnenc n.nt .{cr o[ 2016 being punirive in nrture carr only be appLied prospe tive'and nor rerroacri.ely.

¶820

In vierv ,f finaLrry of the larv declared by the Supr:me (r>urt, the impugne,l sho t ,tuse notices, provlsional attachmenl 0r rlt rs :rs well as rhe adjLr,iicarrr I ,rlclcls ltasseil br rhc various aull.tl:l r::; i.rrrilcr: i,he Bt:rrattri l)rrilrr <sup>.,.tr l1s arrrt:lrlcrl Iv drc Amenr].:c , \ct ,i 2016 in'tprug111111 r,, '1r,. 1,.,,,-,., oi ,.i,r.it ltcLrLions ca1n6t ),. :lrstained Accorrlinglr,, r[ r:;r.:rrc hercbir set aslde and quashcd

¶821

All tlic r nr pe(idons are allowed in the above telnrr . No costs

¶822

As a se 1lrcl, rniscellancous petitions, pendi:rrj rl any, stand

¶823

dismissed

¶824

S),. 1. },.:ARTHIKE AN A:;:iI :;1 NAT REGIS R

,TRUE COPY'

SEC'TION FFICER

To,

1 The Adjudic€ ing Authority, SAFEM (FOP)A and NDF'S;/, JTS;AV, 64/1, G.N Chetty Road T. Nagar, Chennai-600017

¶829

The Assista r Commissioner of lncome Tax, .^(ln,ti rtirrl Clfficer) Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, Hyderab;rd 3'o FIc,r,^'Aa lakar Bhavan, Basheerbagl Hyderabad- 500004

¶830

The Secretar^, (Revenue), Union of lndia, North Block I',1 )v, Delhi

¶831

The Adjudice irrg Authority, (SAFEM(FOP)A and NDPSA) rihastri Bhavan, 4th Floor, Ne v Building Complex, No.26, Haddows RoE c, Ohennai-600006

¶832

B. The Principa Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Departrn:rrt of Revenue, Union of India, Sha tn Bhavan, 4th Floor. New Delhi.

¶833

g. The Assistar I Commissioner, Ministry of [:inance, lnccrn,: T.ax Department, ACIT BPU. L^-rion of tndia. Hvderabad.

¶834

! I I I

¶835

¶836

The Adjudicating Authority, Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, Office of the Competent Authority (Safem(FOP) and NDPSA), UTSAV, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, 64/1 , G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-60001 7.

¶837

11.The officer of the lnitiating Officer and Assistant Commissioner of lncome{ax, Benami Transactions Prohibition Unit, hndhra Pradesh, Telangana and Yanam, District of Puducherry, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-4.

¶838

12.The lnitiating Officer, Manisha Thomar, ll?S, ACIT (BPU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶839

13.The Approving Authority, S.V. Siva Prasad, lRS, ACIT (BPU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶840

14.The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Special lnvestigation Team^(SIT), Beside Traffic Control Room, Opp Kalanjali, Beside L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad.

¶841

The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Ta>1, Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Unit, Room No. 318, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bh;awan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶842

16.One CC to M/S. YAMMANURU SlRl REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

¶843

One CC to SRI B. NARASIMHA SHARIVA, S.C. for lncome Tax [OPUC]

¶844

18.One CC to SRI CH. VENKAT RAMAN, Adv,rcals 1gpggl

¶845

19.One CC to SRI B. KAVITHA YADAV, S.C. for Central Government IOPUC]

¶846

20.Two CCs to GP for Home, High Courl. for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶847

21.One CC to Assistant Solicitor General of lnclia [OPUC]

¶848

22.One CC to lV/S. R.S. ASSOCIATES A e

¶849

Additional^{Solicitor General}

¶850

23.ONE^{CC tO SRI T. SURYA KARAN REDDY,} loPUCl

¶851

¶852

24.Two^{CD CoPies'}

\hu

t \

I a

t \

FlIGH COURT

2?---:a-::===a
- itiE SrAr.e
L;l':
[ 3 DEr 2$22

¶864

DAI I: D:'t310912022

¶865

(l()i,/llr4ON ORDER

¶866

w.P.NOs. 31191, 33195, 33198, 33199, ']3203, 34454, 3467A, 34t 76, 34687, 34691, 347 55, 3r,799, 34800, 34801 ,341,02,34803, 35092, 35093, 3ti113,, 35132, 35134, 35' 44, 35146, 35153, 35154, 3t;155;, 35156, 35171, 35 276, 35279 AND 334103 OF 2022;23070, 23fi7,23501, 23566, 2ir575 Ctl= 2:02',1

¶867

ALLOWING^{.tHE I/1/I]} I-I F,ETITIONS WI'THOUT COSTS

¶868

Q.x.

Nexus Well-Hope Agritech International Ltd. v. The Adjudicating Authority and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nexus Well-Hope Agritech International Ltd. v. The Adjudicating Authority and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Sree Krishna Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs The Indian Railway Welfare Organization ( Irwo) and 4 Others

M/SSree Krishna Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs The Indian Railway Welfare Organization ( Irwo) and 3 Others

Ts Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. and 2 others Vs The Indian Railway Welfare Organisation (Irwo)

M/s. Meera Automobiles, Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Bhavya Cements Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (St) Ltu and 3 others

M/s. Swagath Marriage and Function Hall Vs The Assistant Commissioner, (St)