Retrospective application of the Black Money Act to actions predating its enforcement contravenes Article 20 of the Constitution, prohibiting convictions under ex post facto laws.

ORDER :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

Conglomeration of these cases call in question proceedings in different criminal cases all for the offence punishable under Section 50 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The petitioners, in all these cases, are office bearers of certain business establishments who have been charged with the allegation of violation of the provisions of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the facts obtaining in Criminal Petition No.101368 of 2019, which are common to all the other petitions, would be noticed.

2. Heard Sri Sangram S. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Y.V. Raviraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

During the financial year 2007-08 and in specific on 17-03-2008 Gleaming Snow Worldwide Limited was incorporated as a British Virgin Island (‘BVI’) Company. On 12-05-2009 Oriental Success Universal Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short) gets incorporated as a BVI Company. On 12-06-2009 bank account of Oriental Success Universal Corporation is opened in UBS, Singapore. The bank account opening form submitted by the Corporation included ‘Know Your Customer’ documents and declaration of beneficial owner’s identity in terms of laws prevailing in Singapore. The Gleaming Snow Worldwide Limited which was incorporated on 17-03-2008 is struck off at BVI. On 2 dates in the financial year 2010-11 i.e., on 08-01-2010 and 16.03.2010 an amount of US$16,000 and US$40,000 is credited to the Corporation’s account. After the closure of the financial year, the bank account with UBS, Singapore is closed. The Corporation also gets struck off at BVI on 02-11-2010.

4. Government of India brings in the Act on 01-04-2016. After coming into force of the Act, a notification is issued by Government of India on 14-03-2018 declaring the officer at Panaji, Goa to be the Assessing Officer for the purpose of the Act. The Assessing Officer on 26-03-2018 issues summons to petitioners invoking Section 8 of the Act. The petitioners are all members of one and the same family. On 09-04-2018 one of the petitioners tenders oral deposition before the respondent who was declared to be the Assessing Officer under the Act. On 25-06-2018 assessment proceedings under the Act are commenced by issuance of a notice under Section 10(1) of the Act for the financial year 2018-19 and assessment year 2019-20.

5. After about six months of commencement of proceedings, two show cause notices are issued by the respondent seeking to show cause as to why prosecution should not be initiated against all the petitioners under Sections 50 and 52 of the Act. The petitioners submit their interim reply on 21.02.2019 and additional reply on 14-03-2019. The Competent Authority then grants sanction to prosecute the petitioners for the offences under the Act. After obtaining such sanction, two complaints come to be registered before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Belagavi under Section 200 of the CrPC alleging offences punishable under Sections 50 and 52 of the Act. The registration of criminal case on the complaint filed by the authorized officer is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. Similar pleadings and similar circumstances form the fulcrum of the companion petitions and except the number of registration of criminal cases being different, all other legal contentions and facts are similar to the one being noticed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner