SC has allowed review petition filed by the Union Government against the 2022 judgment (Union of India vs M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Case) in which certain provisions of PBPTA declared unconstitutional.
- PBPTA has been enacted to prohibits benami transactions and provides for confiscating benami properties
- Benami transaction refers to transaction where a property is held by or transferred to a person, but has been provided for or paid by another person.
Key highlights of the 2022 Judgement
- Section 3(2) of the PBPTA declared unconstitutional, that prescribed a jail term for entering into benami transactions.
- This provision violates Article 20(1) (protection in respect of conviction for offense) of the Constitution due to its arbitrary nature.
- Law did not have a retrospective application and the authorities couldn't initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to when the legislation came into force.
- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 Act did not have any explicit provision allowing its retrospective application.
- The Union had contended that the 2016 Act would be applicable retrospectively.
Concerns related to Benami Transactions or Property
|
