Mr. Devineni Avinash V. Union of India

WP/23575/2021

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by M/s. Neopride Pharmaceuticals Limited and Nexus Well-Hope Agritech International Ltd against various respondents including the Adjudicating Authority, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Union of India. The petitions challenged the show cause notices and subsequent orders issued under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, claiming they were arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice. The primary legal contention was whether the provisions of the Act, particularly those introduced by the 2016 amendment, could be applied retrospectively to transactions that occurred before the amendment came into force. The court's decision was heavily influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., which found that the 2016 amendment to the Act was prospective in nature and could not be applied retrospectively.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 721372 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Nexus Feeds Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 151 CPC, Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B NARASIMHA SHARMA; B MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: C V NARASIMHAM
• Keywords: Benami Transactions; Income Tax; Mandamus; Natural Justice; Prohibition; Writ petition
• Section: 5; 18; 151; 24(1); 226

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTIC;E UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE I{ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY W.P.NOs. 331 9J, 33195, 33'1 98. 33 1 $9-3320 3, 34454, 34670, 34676 34687 34691 34755 34799 34.800 34801 34802 34803 35092, 3s093, 35113, 35132, 351 34. 35,144. 3s146. 351 53. 351 54, 35155, 351 56, 3517 1, 35276, 35279 AtlD 33403 OF 2022:23070. 23497 Between: AND 1 23501 23566 231575 0F 2021 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 ...PETITIONER The Adiudicating Authority, ISAFEM(FOP)A, and NDPSA], UTSAV,64/1, G.N Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai-600017 2. Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, (lnitiating Officer) Benami Transaclions Prohibition Unit, Hyderabad 3rdFloor, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004 3. Kowuri Sai Venkata Satya Narayana Redcly, S/o. Kovvuri Suri Reddy, H.No. 7-8, Peethalava Village, Kruthivennu Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh-521324 4. Union of lndia, (Represented by Secretary (Revenue)), North Block, New Delhi ,.,RESPONOENTS 1 wRtT PETITION NO.33191 0F 2022: I Petition un circumstances st. pleased to issue mandamus dec d|.2510312022 issr principles of natur er Article 226 of the Constitution of lnrlia praying that in the ted in the affidavit filed therewith, thr lligh Court may be an appropriate writ, order nr direclior in nature of writ of aring the impugned Order OCI/1.1DSi331 /2021-PBPI ed by the 1st respondent as being arbitr3ry', illegal, violative of rl justice and without authority of law an snatri Transaction Prohibition Ur t, Hyderabad 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bha ^/€rn, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 5 )0004 ....PETITIIONERSiREStIONDENT NO.1 & 2 AND 1. Mr. Devineni 'vinash, S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekhar E.No.43-4-17, Ashok Garden. Gunar ala. Vijayawada, Krishna 520 004 Andhnr )radesh ....RESPONDEN T WRIT PETITIONER 2. Ivlr. Kunchala I rasad, 44-15-138., Lenin Nagar, Gundale , Vilayawada, Andhra Pradesh, lndia ...RESf'Otll)l:t' T/F ESPONDENT 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. Counsel for the Peti oner: Mr. ROHAN ALOOR FOR M/S. lt S. r SS,OCIATES +l Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI B. MUKIlERJEE REP. FOR ASSISTANT SOLICIToR GENERAL OF INDIA counsel for the Respondent No.2: sRl B. NARI SIMHA SHARMA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX WRIT PETITION NO: 23ai66 OF 2021 Between: Mr. Devineni Avinash, S/o. Late Sri D. Rajasekhar, D.No.48-4-17, Ashok Garden, Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna - 520 0O4 Andhra Pradesh ,..PETITIONER AND 1. Union of lndia, Represented by its Ser:retary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -1 10001 2. Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Unit, Room No. 318, 3rd Floor, AayakarBhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 3. Sudagani Malleswara Rao, S/o.Yeraiah 49-3-115/B, Gandhiji Colony, Gundala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENTS 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. IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 -tl suspend the Sh >w Cause Notice bearing No. l1'BA1COM1Fl17l2}2l- 2211035260426(1)d rted 02.09 2021 issued by Respondent .,. 2. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Between: 1. The Union of lndia. Represented by its Secretary (Fev:nue) Department of Revenue, I ,4ir stry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -'l 10001 2. The Assistat: Commissioner of lncome Tax (lniti.rtin,l Officer) Benami Transaction )rohibition Unit, Hyderabad, 3rd FIror, Aavakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS/ttl:liF'ONDENT No.1 & 2 AND '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 ....RESPONDEI'I'TAA/RIT PETITIONER 2. Shri Sudagar i N,,lalleswara Rao, S/o.Yeraiah 49-3-1 15/8, Gandhiji Colony, Gundala, Vila awada, Andhra Pradesh ...RESPC I tI: NT/RESPONDENT 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. Counsel for the Pe1 tioner: Mr. ROHAN ALOOR FOR M1S, tl.S, ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Re pondent No.1: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REF. l:OFl ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENETU I. OF INDIA Counsel for the Re: pondent No.2: SRI B. NARI SIMHA SI-lARlvlA, S.C. FOR INCOME TAX VRIT PETITION NO: 23575 OF 2();! I Between: 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 2. Assistant Commissio-ner_of lncome Tax, Benami Transaction (prohibition) Unit, Room No. 318, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhilwan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 3. Kadiyary Dhana Babu, 45-17-7, Kummari Bazar, Gundala, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh (Respondent No. 3 is not a necessary party) ...RESPONDENTS 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. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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. lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Betlveen: '1 . Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary (Revenue), Department of Revenue, Minlstry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -1 1 0001 2. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax_ (lnitiating Officer), Transaction Prohibition Unit, Hyderabarl, 3'' Floor, Aayakar Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Benami Bhawan, AND ....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT No.1 & 2 -1(' 1. 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 .,.RESPONDENITWRI'T PETITIONER 2. Shri Kadiyam lhana Babu, 45-17-7, Kumrnari Bazar, C undara, Vijayawada, Andhra Prade h ...RESPO lt: l'lT/{TESPONDENT 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. Counsel for the Peti ioner: Mr. ROHAN ALOOR FOR M/S. R.l;. ASI]OCIATES Counsel for the Res rondent No.1: SRI B. MUKI{ERJEE REI) FOR ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL CF ll',lDlA Counsel for the Res >ondent No.2: SRI B. NARI SIMHA SHI$lfvlA, s.c. FoR lNcoME *lu( The Court macle the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE THEEI{II IUSl'ICE UIJAT BHIryAN N'BLE R I u 1 1 2 1/.?(( 3t700 ldcno 14R0 1410? 34R01 1ql)q2 jqOq'1 13- tq13 3 5'134 AND w.P.Nos. 33191. 33195. 33198. 33199. 33203, J44s4. 34670. 34676134687.34igl 35144.35146. 35153. 351.54. i5155.35156. 35171. 352'16, 352'19 ail.33403 ot2022: 2307 0. 23497. 23501. 23566. 2357 5 ot 2021 COMMON ORDER, (Pff the Hon'b/, the ChifJattu Uljal Bhryaa) This order u.i1l drspose of the abovc l>atch of r-vrit petitions. q€ 2. 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 3. For the sake of convenience, rve divide the above batch of writ peddons into three groups in the following manner: Gtoup A:- W.P.Nios.23070 ,23497,23501,23566,23515 of 2021. I 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 Group C:- W.P.No.33403 of 2022 Group B:- W.P.Nos.33191 ,33195, 331.98, 33199, 33203,34454, 4, In tl c flrst batch o[ cases r.r., Group A, the challenge made 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) 5. 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 6. 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 7. iror tl : sake of convcnicncc, let us rake X/.P.|.11).3,1191 of 2022 as the learicc 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 \"'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 2. Proceeds thercoi bcing correspondrng \"l rxcd .' sscr\" ro the rune of cr 01.i .2016 16. 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 15. 'l'hus, hc -.trarcs ur:rc allotrctl on 08.01.20 l5 rrr( tlle lixecl assets 17. 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. Ltti6cd 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 I [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. 22. 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: The simple quesoon addressed by the counsel appearing for both sidcs is whether the amended 2016 Act is retroacdve or prospecuve. . srvering 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,. I I l I I I ::10:: \" cc, rcling. to rhc Lnion o[ lndia, the 2016 r c r.,as a rnetr g.rp llLlinl crt lci.e. 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 23. -, 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 ::ll:: Property Act as unconsrirurional fronr incepuon. It was held as follows: 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 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 :: 12:: 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 25. Suprcrr r Court clarified tl.rat as it has held :hat cnminal pror,rsions un er the Renami Property Act were arbilrLry rrnd incapable puninvc punis rnrent. [iinallv, the Supreme Court con:lu lc,d a: undet I , r'ic,,r, oi' rhe abr,r,c discussion, rve r >1,:1 a,r unclt a) -S cnon 3(Zt oi the unamended 198[t - r:t ir; deck ed as unconsdtutional for being rr,rr[,:sd', arbit rLn,. r ccordingiv, Sccdon 3(2) oi the 20irj Ac: Lrr aiscr uncc )stitutional as it is violative o[ Article I{ t ] ) o , the ( :rnstitudon. b) I r rem forfeirure provision under Section 5 of' thr: unan crurt, the n ,,' 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 . ,.tr l1s arrrt:lrlcrl Iv drc Amenr].:c , ct ,i 2016 in'tprug111111 r,, '1r,. 1,.,,,-,., oi ,.i,r.it ltcLrLions ca1n6t ),. :lrstained 28. All tlic r nr pe(idons are allowed in the above telnrr . No costs Accorrlinglr,, r[ r:;r.:rrc hercbir set aslde and quashcd 2. The Assista Transactions Basheerbagl r Commissioner of lncome Tax, . (ln,ti rtirrl Clfficer) Prohibition Unit, Hyderab;rd 3'o FIc,r, 'Aa lakar Hyderabad- 500004 To, As a se 1lrcl, rniscellancous petitions, pendi:rrj rl any, stand dismissed S),. 1. },.:ARTHIKE AN A:;:iI :;1 NAT REGIS R ,TRUE COPY' SEC'TION FFICER The Adjudic€ ing Authority, SAFEM (FOP)A and NDF'S;/, JTS;AV, 64/1, G.N Chetty Road T. Nagar, Chennai-600017 1 Benami Bhavan, 3. The Secretar , (Revenue), Union of lndia, North Block I',1 )v, Delhi 4. The Adjudice irrg Authority, (SAFEM(FOP)A and NDPSA) rihastri Bhavan, 4th Floor, Ne v Building Complex, No.26, Haddows RoE c, Ohennai-600006 B. The Principa Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Departrn:rrt of Revenue, Union of India, Sha tn Bhavan, 4th Floor. New Delhi. g. The Assistar I Commissioner, Ministry of [:inance, lnccrn,: T.ax Department, ACIT BPU. L -rion of tndia. Hvderabad. e 10. 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. 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. 12.The lnitiating Officer, Manisha Thomar, ll?S, ACIT (BPU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 13.The Approving Authority, S.V. Siva Prasad, lRS, ACIT (BPU), Hyderabad, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 14.The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Special lnvestigation Team (SIT), Beside Traffic Control Room, Opp Kalanjali, Beside L.B. Stadium, Hyderabad. 15. The Assistant Commissioner of lncome Ta>1, Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Unit, Room No. 318, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bh;awan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 16.One CC to M/S. YAMMANURU SlRl REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 17. One CC to SRI B. NARASIMHA SHARIVA, S.C. for lncome Tax [OPUC] 18.One CC to SRI CH. VENKAT RAMAN, Adv,rcals 1gpggl 19.One CC to SRI B. KAVITHA YADAV, S.C. for Central Government IOPUC] 20.Two CCs to GP for Home, High Courl. for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 21.One CC to Assistant Solicitor General of lnclia [OPUC] 22.One CC to lV/S. R.S. ASSOCIATES A e Additional Solicitor General 23.ONE CC tO SRI T. SURYA KARAN REDDY, loPUCl 24.Two CD CoPies' hu MP I ! I I I V l! 2?---:a-::===a - itiE SrAr.e t FlIGH COURT DAI I: D:'t310912022 I a L;l': t [ 3 DEr 2$22 (l()i ,/llr4ON ORDER 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 ALLOWING .tHE I/1/I] I-I F,ETITIONS WI'THOUT COSTS I a Q.x. "