Supreme Court Recalled Its Ruling in Which It Declared Certain Provisions of Benami Act Unconstitutional

Case Details: Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd. - [2024] 167 taxmann.com 525 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Manoj Misra, JJ.
• Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G., Vikramjit Bannerjee, Siddharth Sinha, Zoheb Hussain, S A Haseeb, Mrs Aakansha Kaul, Bhuvan Mishra, Ritwiz Rishabh, Kanu Agarwal, Advs. & Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR for the Petitioner.
• Ajay Vohra, Ms Manisha T. Karia, Sr. Advs., Ankit Anandraj Shah, Pai Amit, Ms Iyer Shruti Gopal, AORs, Aniket, Ms Bhoomija Verma, Abhimanyu Singh, Shantanu Singh, Ravi Sehgal, Deepin Deepak Sahni, Ms Ananya Arora, Ms Shreya Gupta & Anandh K., Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The Supreme Court has allowed the review petition filed by the Union of India and recalled its judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd [2022] 141 taxmann.com 389 (SC).

Supreme Court Held

The Apex Court, in the case of Ganpati, declared Section 3(2) and Section 5 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, as unconstitutional. The Court had held that Section 3(2) was manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 20(1). Further, the provisions of Section 5 of the 2016 Amendment Act were declared unconstitutional as they were punitive in nature and could only be applied prospectively and not retroactively.

In the instant case, the review was allowed as the challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision cannot be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties. The Supreme Court held that there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the unamended provisions, and the same was clear from the formulation of the question that arose for consideration before the Bench in the judgment. The issue of constitutional validity was not squarely addressed in the submissions of parties recorded in the judgment.

Thus, the Court allowed the review petition and recalled the judgment.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 389 (SC) (para 6) recall.

List of Cases Referred to

• Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd. [2022] 141 taxmann.com 389/(2023) 3 SCC 315 (SC) (para 2).