- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Reserves Order On Central Government Plea Challenging Delhi High Court Order In Gautam Khaitan Case
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court has reserved its order on the central government’s plea challenging a Delhi High Court order which had ruled that the black money law cannot have a retrospective effect, that is, it cannot be applied prior to April 1, 2016, as fixed by the parliament.On May 16, the Delhi High Court had passed the order preventing the government and the Income Tax...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has reserved its order on the central government’s plea challenging a Delhi High Court order which had ruled that the black money law cannot have a retrospective effect, that is, it cannot be applied prior to April 1, 2016, as fixed by the parliament.
On May 16, the Delhi High Court had passed the order preventing the government and the Income Tax (I-T) Department from initiating any punitive measure against businessman Gautam Khaitan under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.
The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra stated that it has to give some prima facie opinion, otherwise the High Court order could be used in other matters.
However, the Supreme Court has also indicated that, prima facie, it will set aside the Delhi High Court order that restrained action against the AgustaWestland scam-accused Khaitan under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act.
The Supreme Court said that trial and proceedings against Khaitan should continue as per law.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the offence alleged against Khaitan is a continuing offence.
Mehta also that Khaitan had never disclosed his foreign income and assets despite the general one-time window provided by the government for people to make voluntary disclosure of their foreign income and assets.
The Delhi High Court had restrained the Centre and the I-T Department from taking any action against Khaitan on May 16.
The Supreme Court vacation bench, headed by Justice Mishra and including Justice M R Shah, had issued a notice to Khaitan asking him to reply within six weeks.
In May, the central government had moved the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order, which ruled that the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act cannot have a retrospective effect prior to April 1, 2016, as fixed by Parliament.
On May 16, the Delhi High Court passed the order preventing the government and the Income Tax department from initiating any punitive measure against Khaitan.
Challenging his arrest, Khaitan had submitted before the court that the Act on black money was notified by the central government before the Act itself became operational.
The Enforcement Directorate had arrested Khaitan on January 26 for allegedly depositing money in offshore accounts.
The Delhi High Court had stated, “... at this stage we are prima facie of the considered view that, the official respondents could not have exercised powers granted to it under the provisions of Sections 85 and 86 of the said Act, prior to the enactment itself coming into force, in terms of the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the said Act”.
The Delhi High Court had queried the central government on the retrospective applicability from July 2015 of the black money law enacted in April 2016 to take into consideration undisclosed foreign income and assets.
Khaitan had informed the court that under the Act unnecessary action has been initiated against him for assets which did not exist before the law came into force.