JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr.C.V.Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned senior counsel and Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Subject matter of all the writ petitions being identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. W.P.No.11680 of 2021 was argued as the lead case and therefore facts narrated in the said writ petition would be referred to for the sake of convenience.

4. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the first respondent.

5. Be it stated that order dated 30.03.2021 has been passed by the first respondent under Section 24 (4) (a) (i) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

6. By the aforesaid impugned order, first respondent has come to the conclusion that the transaction in question was arranged and executed in a planned manner by M/s. Nexus Feeds Limited, the petitioner, which has been treated as the beneficial owner so that its funds out of unknown sources get parked in the name of the benamidar in the form of shares. Thus it has been held that the consideration has flown through beneficial owner for its immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect; thereby conclusively falling under Section 2 (9) (A) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. Consequently, in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (2) of Section 18 of the aforesaid Act read with notification No.S.O.1621 (E) dated 18.05.2017 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes r/w Rule 5 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Rules, 2016 and II Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respondent No.1, as the Initiating Officer, passed the order dated 30.03.2021 under Section 24 (4) (a) (i) of the aforesaid Act continuing the provisional attachment of the properties as mentioned in the said order till such time, order is passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 26 (3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, further directing that the attached property shall not be transferred, converted, disposed or moved in any manner whatsoever until or unless specifically permitted to do so by the first respondent.

7. Though the impugned order dated 30.03.2021 has been assailed on a number of grounds, the hearing was confined to retrospective applicability of the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 to the transactions in question. It is the contention of the petitioner that there can be no retrospectivity of the aforesaid Amendment Act of 2016 and hence the impugned order is ex facie bad in law being without jurisdiction.

8. At the outset, facts as pleaded by the petitioner may be adverted to.

9. Petitioner M/s. Nexus Feeds Limited is a company and is represented by its managing director Goluguri Ramakrishna Reddy.

10. It is stated that petitioner company had a turnover of Rs.360 crores during the financial year 2019-2020. Authorised share capital of the petitioner company is Rs.62,33,00,000-00. Entire authorised share capital is paid up with promoters holding 1,23,93,000 shares with other individuals and body corporates holding the balance shares.

11. During the years 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 petitioner company went for expansion of manufacturing activities and in order to raise capital, had taken loans from various banks besides raising share capital by issuing shares to interested individuals.

12. Petitioner company had also approached the third respondent for investment since he is in aqua farming and purchases aqua feed from the petitioner company. It is stated that third respondent invested an amount of Rs.45 lakhs and was correspondingly allotted Rs.4,50,000 shares of petitioner company. Respondent No.3 made the