Satyajit Saha and 9 Ors V. The Union of India and 3 Ors

ITA/1/2026

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appellants who were implicated in benami transactions related to liquor shops owned by Shri Pradip Kumar Saha. Following a search and seizure operation in 2015, the authorities initiated proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988. The appellants challenged the provisional attachment of their assets, which led to a series of legal battles. Initially, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order based on a Supreme Court judgment that deemed certain provisions of the Act as applicable only prospectively. However, after a review of the Supreme Court's decision, which allowed the Union of India to seek a review of the Tribunal's earlier decision, the Tribunal restored the proceedings against the appellants. The High Court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's latest order was based on the finding that the Tribunal had not properly considered the statutory limitations for reviewing its earlier decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833094 (HC-GAUHATI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India and Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited
• Laws Referred To: Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DY S G I SC INCOME TAX
• Assessee Lawyers: H BURAGOHAIN
• Keywords: Benami Transactions; Confiscation proceedings; Provisional attachment; Retrospective application; Review Application
• Section: 5; 49; 24; 3(2); 19(1)(b)

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010278962025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : ITA/1/2026 SATYAJIT SAHA AND 9 ORS SON OF LATE BINOD LAL SAHA, RESIDENT OF TARANAGAR, P.O- MOHANPUR BAZAR, P.S- SIDHA WEST TRIPURA 799211 2: BHUPAL DEBNATH SON OF LATE HARALAL DEBNATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- LAL CHARRA P.O- KHOWAI DISTRICT- KHOWAI WEST TRIPURA- 799201 3: KAJAL SAHA SON OF LATE MANINDRA CHANDRA SAHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- USHA BAZAR P.O- AGARTALA WEST TRIPURA- 799009 4: SURENDRALAL ROY SON OF LATE MANINDRALAL ROY RESIDENT OF CHARAKHOWAI DISTRICT- KHAWAL TRIPURA- 799201 5: KRISHNA DAS BANIK SON OF LATE BIRENDRA CHANDRA BANIK RESIDENT OF TOWN- PRATAPGARH ROAD NO 1 P.O- AGARTALA WEST TRIPURA- 799001 6: NIRMAL GHOSH SON OF LATE JAGDISH CHANDRA GHOSH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SEKERKOTE P.O- SEKERKOTE Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 2/17 WEST TRIPURA- 799130 7: GOPAL CHANDRA SAHA SON OF LATE SRIMANTA KUMAR SAHA RESIDENT OF TOWN- PRATAPGARH ROAD NO 1 P.O- AGARTALA WEST TRIPURA- 799001 8: NANDA DULAL SAHA SON OF LATE PRAFULLA KUMAR SAHA RESIDENT OF SHIBNAGAR NEAR UDICI CLUB P.O- COLLEGE TILLA WEST TRIPURA- 799004 9: SUBHASH DEBNATH SON OF LATE SUNIL DEBNATH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RADHA NAGAR P.O- PURBA NAGAON P.S- RANIR BAZAR WEST TRIPURA- 799035 10: KARUN ROY SON OF LATE KAMAL RANJAN ROY RESIDENT OF JIRANIA P.O- BIRENDRA NAGAR WEST TRIPURA- 79904 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI 2:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BP) CUM APPROVING AUTHORITY AYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005 3:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BP) CUM INITIATING OFFICER AYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005 Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 3/17 4:THE INITIATING OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BENAMI PROHIBITION) GUWAHATI NER ROOM NO 313 3RD FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAWAN G.S. ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI ASSAM- 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H. BURAGOHAIN, MS. H BORAH,MS A DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, INCOME TAX BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 30.01.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed by invoking Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), as amended up-to-date, to assail the legality and validity of the common order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) at New Delhi in Review Application Nos. i) FPA-PBPT-948/GWH/2019, ii) FPA- P019, iii) FPA-PBPT-965/GWH/2019, iv) FPA-PBPT-966/GWH/2019, v) FPA-PBPT- 967/GWH/2019, vi) FPA-PBPT-968/GWH/2019, vii) FPA-PBPT-969/GWH/2019, Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 4/17 viii) FPA-PBPT-970/GWH/2019, ix) FPA-PBPT-973/GWH/2019 & x) FPA-PBPT- 974/GWH/2019. 3. The facts of the case is that a search and seizure operation had been conducted on 25.03.2015 at the residence of one Sri Pradip Kumar Saha, Proprietor of M/s Pioneer Foreign Liquor Shop, Agartala, whereupon the seized documents and other evidences allegedly revealed that Shri Pradip Kumar Saha had entered into numerous Benami transactions and was operating several liquor shops in the names of other persons, including the shop of the present appellants. 4. The Ministry of Finance, vide Notification No. 40/2017/F No.173/429/2016- ITA, notified the appointment of an Initiating Officer to perform the functions of the authority under the Act. The appellants appeared before the Initiating Officer on 14.03.2018 to record their statements under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act. On 28.03.2018, a Show-Cause Notice was issued to the appellants under Section 24 of the Act and a reply to the same was submitted by the appellants on 16.04.2018. 5. The Initiating Officer thereafter passed order dated 25.06.2018 for provisional attachment of assets of the appellants. The Initiating Officer thereafter made a reference to the Adjudicating Authority, for confirmation of the provisional attachment order dated 25.06.2018. 6. The appellants being aggrieved challenged the legality and validity of the Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 5/17 provisional attachment order dated 25.06.2018 in this Court, by way of WP(C) 4886/2018, where the parties names as per the Cause Title, was as follows : “Sonamura Foreign Liquor Shop No.2 and Another vs. The Union of India and Others”. 7. WP(C) 4986/2018 was thereafter disposed of, vide order dated 07.09.2018, with a direction being given to the respondent authorities to decide the issue raised by the appellants, regarding the legality and validity of the provisional attachment order dated 25.06.2018. Consequent to the order dated 07.09.2018 passed in WP(C) 4986/2018, the Adjudicating Officer after hearing the parties, issued common order dated 26.07.2019, by holding that the appellants were the Benamidars of Shri Pradip Kumar Saha, who was the actual owner of the wine shops being run in the names of the appellants. 8. Being aggrieved with the common order dated 26.07.2019, passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the appellants herein filed the appeals between September and October, 2019, challenging the impugned order dated 26.07.2019. During the pendency of the appeals before the Adjudicating Authority, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 315, held vide judgment and order dated 23.08.2022, that the provisions of the 2016 Amendment to the Act could not be applied retrospectively, for initiating confiscation proceedings in respect of transactions that had taken place prior to 10.08.2016. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (supra) holding that Section 5 of Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 6/17 the 2016 Act could only be applied prospectively and not retrospectively have been clearly stated in paragraph 127.1 and 127.4. The entire paragraph 127 of the above judgment is reproduced hereinbelow as follows : “127. In view of the above discussion, we hold as under: 127.1. Section 3(2) (sic Section 3) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. 127.2. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended 1988 Act, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. 127.3. The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions. 127.4. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. 127.5. The authorities concerned cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered Into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act viz. 25-10-2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed. 127.6. As this Court is not concerned with the constitutionality of such independent forfeiture proceedings contemplated under the 2016 Amendment Act on the other grounds, the aforesaid questions are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.” 9. The appellants thereafter filed applications before the learned Appellate Tribunal under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, (“BPTA” in Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 7/17 short), New Delhi, seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against them under the Act, in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (supra). 10. The learned Appellate Tribunal thereafter allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority, confirming the action of the Initiating Officer, vide order dated 07.12.2022, by holding as follows:- “We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records. A challenge to the order of the Adjudicating Authority has been made by way of this appeal mainly with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of \"Union of India & Anr. v/s M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Put. Ltd.\" (supra). On perusal of the order of the Adjudicating Authority and the notice of the Initiating Officer, it is the case of alleged benami transactions prior to the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2016. It could not be disputed by the respondents. In view of the above, this case is covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court. We quote para 130 (1) of the Judgment of the Apex Court (supra) for ready reference. \"130. In view of the above discussion, we hold as under: a) Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. b) In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. c) The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions. d) In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 8/17 being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. e) Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25.10.2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed. f) As this Court is not concerned with the constitutionality of such independent forfeiture proceedings contemplated under the 2016 Amendment Act on the other grounds, the aforesaid questions are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings\". In the light of the facts available on record, we find that the appeals are covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of \"Union of India & Anr. vs M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.\" (supra). Therefore, the orders of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the action of Initiating Officer needs to be interfered and accordingly the impugned order and the proceedings initiated by the respondent in reference to the alleged benami transactions of a period prior to the Amendment Act of 2016 are set aside. These appeals are allowed in view of the aforesaid. It is however made clear that if the Apex Court reviews its judgment, the respondent would be at liberty to take appropriate remedy pursuance to it which includes filing a review petition before this Tribunal. It is also made clear that if the Department has an independent right to initiate the action taking the Amendment Act, 2016 to be prospective and does not offend the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of \"Union of India & Anr. v/s M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.\" (supra) then this order would not come in their way as otherwise action can be governed by para 130 I of the judgment (supra).” Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 9/17 11. Thus, while the issue had died a natural death, in view of the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, which had been made in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 23.08.2022 in Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (supra) (2023) 3 SCC 315, a review application was moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Union of India in Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (supra) in the year 2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter allowed the review petition in Union of India and Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2981, by recalling it’s earlier judgment and order dated 23.08.2022, vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2024, by holding as follows:- “5. It is not disputed that there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the unamended provisions. This is also clear from the formulation of the question which arose for consideration before the Bench in paragraph 3 of the judgment, which has been extracted above. In the submissions of parties which have been recorded in the judgment, the issue of constitutional validity was not squarely addressed. 6. A challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision cannot be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties. We accordingly allow the review petition and recall the Judgment dated August 23, 2022. Civil Appeal No 5783 of 2022 shall stand restored to file for fresh adjudication before a Bench to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side. 7. Where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 315, liberty is granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review in view of the present judgment.” 12. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, allowing the review petition in Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, the respondent Union of India Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 10/17 herein submitted review petitions praying for recalling the common order dated 07.12.2022 and for condoning the delay in filing the review petition before the learned Appellate Tribunal. 13. The learned Appellate Tribunal thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, recalled its earlier order, by allowing the review petitions and restoring the appeals of the appellants for further proceedings. The impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal is reproduced herein below as follows:- “The arguments on the Review Application and the application for Condonation of Delay were made by both the parties at length. This Tribunal has decided similar Review Application and the application of Condonation of Delay vide its elaborate order dated 10.07.2025. It is covering all the arguments of the parties on the application of Condonation of Delay and Review Application. Both the applications have been allowed therein. Thus, this Review Application and the application for Condonation of Delay is to be governed by the order of this Tribunal dated 10.07.2025 in the case of Abdullah Ali Baisharaf v/s The Initiating Officer, BPU, Delhi in Review Application no. FPA-PBPT/1553/DLI/2024 in Appeal no. FPA-PBPT-1113/DLJ/2020. In the light of the order aforesaid, the Review Application and the application for Condonation of Delay are allowed with restoration of the appeal to its original number for further proceedings. Let these appeals be listed on 24th December, 2025 before regular bench.” 14. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order, allowing the review petition and restoring the appeals, should be set aside, as the same is not permissible in terms of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 11/17 CPC, which has been clarified by the decision of the 3 Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi vs. K.L. Rathi Steals Limited and others, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 315 and the subsequent decision of the 2 Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deputy Director of Income Tax (BPU Unity) and others vs. Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2622. 15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the 3 Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.10.2024 passed in Union of India and Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2981, had reviewed the judgment dated 23.08.2022 passed in Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited (supra) reported in (2023) 3 SCC 315 and had granted liberty to the Union of India (aggrieved party), to seek a review of the judgment dated 07.12.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal. As such, there was no infirmity with the review petition filed by the Union of India against the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, which had been based on the earlier judgment dated 23.08.2022 passed in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 315, which was reviewed. Accordingly there being no infirmity with the impugned order allowing the review petition, vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, the present appeal should be dismissed. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that there is nothing mentioned in the Gauhati High Court Rules with regard to whether an appeal filed under Section 49 of the Act is to be heard by a Division Bench or a Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 12/17 Single Bench of this Court, though Section 260B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be heard only by a Division Bench of this Court. 17. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 18. With regard to the submission of the respondents that there is nothing to show in the Gauhati High Court Rules, as to whether an appeal arising out of Section 49 of the Act can be heard by a Division Bench or a Single Bench of this Court, we do not find any bar for this Court to decide the present appeal. 19. The other issue that has to be decided is as to whether the finality given to the issue vide order dated 07.12.2022, which had been made on the basis of the judgment dated 23.08.2022 passed in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 315 with regard to the alleged Benami transactions that had been allegedly entered into by Shri Pradip Kumar Saha with the appellants, on the basis of a search and seizure operation that had been conducted prior to the amendment of the Act, i.e, on 25.03.2015, could be re-opened, in view of the review of the earlier Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment being allowed vide a subsequent order dated 18.10.2024 of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2981. 20. Thus the Questions of Law that are to be decided are as follows : “1. Whether the Learned Tribunal acted illegally in allowing the Review Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 13/17 Petition on the basis of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, without examining whether such liberty could override the statutory limitations under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC, 1908 and Section 40(2)(f) PBPT Act? 2. Whether the impugned order allowing the review application is in the teeth of the express bar set forth in Explanation in Rule 1 of Order 47?” 21. As can be seen from the order dated 19.10.2024 passed in the review petition in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2981, the Union of India (respondent) have been granted the liberty to seek a review of the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal. However, in the case of K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra), the Supreme Court while considering it’s other judgments, such as Subramanian Swamy vs. State of T.N, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75 and Beghar Foundation vs. K.S. Puttaswami, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 1, – has held that in terms of the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, if the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based, is subsequently reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of a Superior Court in any other case, it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment. Even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for a Court to undertake a review and that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate Bench or a larger Bench by itself, cannot be a ground for review. 22. Paragraph 57 and 58 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 14/17 K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow as follows : “57. This Court in Subramanian Swamy vs. State of T.N, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75 has read the the Explanation as follows: (SCC pp. 96- 97, para 52) \"52. ... The Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides... that if the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based, is reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, it shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Thus, even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.\" (emphasis in original) 58. The final one is a decision of the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation vs. K.S. Puttaswami, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 1 (Aadhaar Review-5 J.). The majority was of the following view: (SCC p. 5, para 2) \"2. The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26-9-2018. We have perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26-9-2018 is made out. We hasten to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed.\" Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 15/17 23. In the case of Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra), the two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, vide order dated 12.02.2025, expressed their inability to agree with the observations made by the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 2981, wherein it had been held as “Where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 315, liberty is granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review in view of the present judgment.” 24. This observation had been made by the two Judges Bench by taking the support of the earlier judgment of another three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra). Further, the two Judges Bench in Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra) had held that the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, while disposing the review petition in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2981, had failed to notice the judgment of the earlier judgment of the three Judges Bench in K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra). 25. As can be seen from the above facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra), has already taken a decision with regard to which of the three Judges Benches decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court should be followed. It has already decided that the earlier three Judges Bench in the case of K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra) would have to be followed and the observation/direction passed in paragraph-7 of the review petition in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 16/17 Limited, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2981 cannot be followed, as the same was apparently per incuriam. When the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra) has already decided as to which decision of the conflicting 3 Judges Bench is to be followed, we are bound to follow the above interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when there are conflicting decisions of equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the earlier decision would have to be followed by the High Court. 26. In view of the reasons stated above, the following Questions of Law are answered as follows : 1. Whether the Learned Tribunal acted illegally in allowing the Review Petition on the basis of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, without examining whether such liberty could override the statutory limitations under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC, 1908 and Section 40(2)(f) PBPT Act? 2. Whether the impugned order allowing the review application is in teeth of the express bar set forth in Explanation in Rule 1 of Order 47? Answer – In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra) and Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra), the learned Appellate Tribunal could not have allowed the review petition only on the basis of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Another vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, reported in 2024 SCC Printed from counselvise.com Page No.# 17/17 OnLine SC 2981, without taking a decision as to whether the provisions of Order 47 of the CPC was attracted. 27. The impugned common order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) at New Delhi in the Review Application Nos. i) FPA-PBPT-948/GWH/2019, ii) FPA-P019, iii) FPA-PBPT- 965/GWH/2019, iv) FPA-PBPT-966/GWH/2019, v) FPA-PBPT-967/GWH/2019, vi) FPA-PBPT-968/GWH/2019, vii) FPA-PBPT-969/GWH/2019, viii) FPA-PBPT- 970/GWH/2019, ix) FPA-PBPT-973/GWH/2019 & x) FPA-PBPT-974/GWH/2019 is accordingly set aside. 28. The appeal is allowed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant Printed from counselvise.com "