"Prima facie, I am of the view that there is nothing wrong with the order. I am not inclined to interfere with the attachment," Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva said while hearing Jain's plea challenging the attachment order of May 24.
The court also refused to stay the proceedings before the adjudicating aurthority as was sought by the minister.
The assets were initially provisionally attached on February 27 and the order was extended on May 24 by the IT department till the time the adjudicating authority took a final decision.
He had contended that the alleged benami transactions, from the proceeds of which the attached assets were allegedly purchased, took place between 2011 to March 31, 2016 and therefore, the amendment which came into effect in November 2016 would not apply.
However, during the hearing, the court said it was of the prima facie view that Jain would be covered by the earlier unamended provision also.
The ASG opposed issuance of notice saying presently the initiating officer has only passed a provisional attachment order andforwarded it to the adjudicating authority, which is yet to even issue a show cause notice.
He said the adjudicating authority will give Jain an opportunity to be heard and cross examine the witnesses before taking a final decision.
The counsel for Jain, on the other hand, claimed that witnesses were examined by the initiating officer prior to passing his order, but no opportunity for cross-examination was given to him.
In the plea, he has also challenged the jurisdiction of the department to invoke the amended provisions of the Act against him.
The tax department had alleged that Jain had funded four companies in which he used to be a director prior to his election, and they in turn had bought land from those proceeds.
The minister had denied any involvement with the companies after his election.
Hundreds of bighas of land, allegedly purchased in and around Delhi by the said four firms, have been provisionally attached by the department under the new benami law which carries a maximum punishment of up to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a hefty penalty.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
