V MOHAN Vs. V PADMAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE V.P.Selvarajan was convicted under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 by the judgment dated 23.11.1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the convict"). The petitioner in W.P.No.1150 of 2001 is the wife of one V.P.Vadivel Achari, who is the brother of such convict and the petitioner in W.P.No.1149/2001 is the nephew of the convict (the son of the petitioner in W.P.No.1150 of 2000). After coming into force of The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the competent authority issued a notice apparently under Section 18 of the Act to the Income Tax Officer (1st respondent) to make enquiries regarding the agricultural land, house, investments and capital account shown in the balance sheet of the petitioner in W.P.No.1150/2001. Such petitioner furnished details of the accounts right from 1950-51 till 1966-67 by referring to the regular income tax assessments which had been completed by the Income Tax Officers.

(2.) ON 02.02.1980, the competent authority (the 2nd respondent) issued a notice under Section 6 of the Act to the convict which was in respect of certain gold ornaments and there was not even a single whisper relating to the immovable properties standing in the name of the present petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioner in W.P.No.1150 of 2001 furnished further particulars pursuant to the query of the Income Tax Officer and also furnished different particulars relating to query made by the competent authority vide notice dated 29.03.1993. At that stage, a notice, purporting to be under Section 6 of the Act, was served on the petitioner in W.P.No.1150 of 2001 listing certain immovable properties as well as investments and jewelries. It was indicated by the said petitioner that the books of accounts had been maintained since 1950 and she also furnished particulars relating to different assessments made, thereby contending that the properties in question were acquired from lawful business activities of the petitioner. 2.1. A notice under Section 6(1), dated 19.1.1994, was issued to the petitioner in W.P.No.1149 of 2001 in respect of the investments in a proprietary concern by name V.P.V.Gold Palace, Kumbakonam, residential house property and certain agricultural lands, the investments in the shape of cash made in 1973 and 1986 and the immovable property purchased in 1970 and 1976. Such petitioner in the explanation claimed that he had no financial or business connection with his convicted paternal uncle and he had also explained the sources of investment by referring to various income tax returns and tax assessment orders. Various documents relating to gifts were also referred to.

(3.) MR.P. Wilson, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the competent authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal had applied their mind to the relevant facts and circumstances and have come to a particular conclusion, which is not expected to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by him that the non-service of any notice under Section 6 of the Act on the convict, in the peculiar facts and circumstances present case, does not have the effect of vitiating the proceedings, inasmuch as the petitioners, who are the ostensible owners of the properties, had been served with notice and were given opportunity of hearing and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioners have at all been prejudiced by the non-service of notice under Section 6, relating to the forfeited property, on the convict.