Statute cannot have any retrospectivity unless expressly provided therein

Statute cannot have any retrospectivity unless expressly provided therein

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

ORDER

THE RELEVANT TEXT OF THE ORDER AS FOLLOWS :  Without question, the omission on the part of the government to frame rules under Section 8 of the 1988 Act rendered it a dead letter and wholly inoperative. Assuming that the appellant had entered into a benami transaction in 2011, no action could be taken by the Central government, in the absence of enabling procedural rules. It is well within the right of the appellant to contend that the Central government had waived its rights. It could also contend that no criminal action could be initiated on the ground of limitation. Now, these rights which had accrued to the appellant could not, in the absence of an express provision be extinguished by the amending Act of 2016. In other words, applying the definition of benami property and benami transaction the Central government could not, on the basis of the 2016 amendment allege contravention and start the prosecution in respect of a transaction in 2011. For the reasons given above, the main show cause notice dated 29th August, 2017 and the subsequent notice dated 9th October, 2017 issued by the respondents are a nullity, in my opinion. Both the said notices are quashed and set aside. I make it absolutely clear that this order will not prevent the respondents from taking proper steps in accordance with law, as they may be advised. To the above extent, this appeal (APO 8 of 2019) is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 18th December, 2018 is set aside. Certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. To Download Copy of Order - Cilck Here  For Regular Updates Join : https://t.me/Studycafe Tags : Judgement, High Court