The tax office has been rampantly invoking the law ‘retrospectively’ to slap notice, confiscate property, and initiate prosecution. It justified the actions on the grounds that the prime intention of the original Benami Act of 1988 was to make benami transaction an offence and clamp down on unjust gains and tax evasion.
Now, responding to a bunch of writ petitions — which challenged the retrospective application of the harsh law — the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Benami Amendment Act, 2016 cannot have retrospective effect.
Under the amended law which came into effect from November 1, 2016, tax officers going after benami deals check whether the official owner — on whose name a property, land, or any asset is registered — is also the real owner. If not, the tax office can use the amended law to confiscate property, demand a penalty equivalent to a quarter of the market value of the asset, and take steps to put the offenders — the real owner as well as the front or ‘benamidar’ — behind bars.
“Hopefully, this will end the ambiguity on retrospective use of the law. The petitions were heard as these were related to the root of the implementation of the law… now, the assesse cannot be penalised for doing an act at a time when the statute was not in force and thus will not face punitive action for old transactions,” said senior chartered accountant Dilip Lakhani.
Counsel for the tax department argued before the court that the amended law simply “clarified and amplified” the underlying intention to curb corruption which was also the aim of Benami Act of 1988. According to the department, the terms used in the principal and the amended Acts are two sides of the same coin.
‘Acted without Jurisdiction’
‘Confiscation’ of benami assets as used in the amended Act is no different from ‘acquisition without compensation’ which was part of the old Act, the department said.
“The judgment, however, does not discuss the effect of Section 1(3) of the original Act of 1988 which remains un-amended in the present Act. It says the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have to come into force on May 19, 1988. Similarly, there is no discussion on Section 2(9)(A)(a) which talks about property “held” by a person even though it was acquired earlier. The question is can the tax officer invoke the law retrospectively under these sections,” Ashwani Taneja, a chartered accountant and former member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
For more than two decades, the old benami law was largely ineffective in the absence of rules which were notified only in 2016.
In the search and seizure carried out by the I-T department on various premises belonging to the petitioners, several “incriminating documents” were found which indicated benami land deals. Subsequently, showcause notices were issued under the amended Benami Act because consideration was actually paid by the petitioners with which the land was purchased in the name of different persons. After provisional attachment orders were initiated, the petitioners said the tax officers acted without jurisdiction as the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, came into effect on November 1, 2016 and the alleged benami transactions took place prior to that date.
Ruling that the high courts has power in appropriate cases to prohibit executive authority from acting without jurisdiction, the court said that “unless a contrary intention is reflected, a legislation is presumed and intended to be prospective”. “For in the normal course of human behaviour, one is entitled to arrange his affairs keeping in view the laws for the time being in force and such arrangement of affairs should not be dislodged by retrospective application of law.”
Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily Market Updates & Live Business News.
- Rajasthan High Court allows UltraTech plea
- Rajasthan High Court puts off hearing Sachin Pilot, other dissident MLAs' plea till Friday
- Rajasthan High Court makes coronavirus test mandatory for all newly arrested persons
- Supreme Court stays Rajasthan High Court order extending deadline of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C
- Owners of multiplex chain move Rajasthan High Court over tax sops
- Rajasthan High Court notice to Centre over curb on condom ads on TV
17 Comments on this Story
Jayaraman Theeyarath458 days ago
Extremely negative judgement. Instead helping tax authorities to book such fraudsters irrespective of the time period court is directly justifying such deeds under the garb of retrospective clause. Very unfortunate indeed. Centre should bring in amendment to give retrospective effect to the new law.
Dr Mahesh459 days ago
DEAR SHRI MODI
INDIA HAS BECOME VERY LAWLESS. THIS HURTS TOURISM, ECONOMY AND INDIA PROGRESS TO WORLD NUMBER 3 ECONOMY. TIME TO PUT 1 to 5 MILLION WOMEN SECURITY FORCES ALL OVER COUNTRY. THIS IS TRUE NARI SHAKTI. LETS DO 50-50 SPLIT BETWEEN CENTRE AND STATE GOVERNMENTS ON MONEY INCURRED FOR THIS PROGRAM. WE WILL CREATE MILLIONS OF QUALITY INDIAN JOBS, THEY WILL DO INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY AND NATIONAL SERVICE. LETS REVITALIZE ECONOMY AND ENSURE SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR ALL DESIS IN EVERY CORNER OF INDIA. WHAT WE INVEST IN OUR SAFETY AND SECURITY, WE WILL MAKE OVER 10 TIMES IN REWARDS TO ALL PARTS OF INDIAN ECONOMY. LETS BETTER INVEST IN INDIA THAN FOREIGN PLACES. LETS GET ALL INDIAN MONEY BACK LIKE FOREIGN RESERVES OF OVER 30 LAKH CRORES AND INVEST IN INDIA ONLY. SAFETY IS FIRST AND BEST. KAL KARE SO AAJ KARO. AAJ KARE SO AB KARO. VANDE MATARAM
DR MAHESH REDDY
Dr Mahesh459 days ago
BETTER WE DIGITIZE ALL LAND AND PROPERTY RECORDS AND BLOCKCHAIN THEM SO EVERYONE CAN SEE WHO OWNS WHAT ALL OVER INDIA. FULL TRANSPARENCY HELPS EVERYONE PLUS TAXES.