- (1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, which is a registered Limited Liability Partnership registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act , 2008 through its designated partner while claiming following reliefs: "It is therefore, most humble and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed; and by an appropriate writ, order or direction (i) By an appropriate writ, order of direction, the provisional attachment order dated 18.11.2017 passed by the respondent no.3 (Ann.10) be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside; and (ii) By an appropriate writ, order of direction the proceedings under section 26 of the Act of 1988 before the Adjudicating Authority be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside; (iii) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to vacate the attachment, release the bank accounts as well as the properties (movable/immovable) belonging to the petitioner LLP and its designated partner Shri Aditya Lodha. (iv) By an appropriate writ, order or direction it may be declared that the provisions of the Act of 1988 are not attracted to the affairs and property of the petitioner; (v) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may be restrained from making any attachment/recovery, by adopting any coercive measure; and (vi) Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted."
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that search and seizure proceeding under the provisions of Income Tact Act was conducted against the petitioner on 10.08.2017. During the course of search operation, Income Tax Authorities seized certain documents and statements of some persons were recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-I, Jaipur vide letter dated 18.08.2017 sent a reference to the respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner (Benami Prohibition), Rajasthan and Initiating Officer (Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988) and on the basis of the said information received from the Income Tax Department, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice under Section 24(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the PBPT Act') to two persons viz. Aditya Parakh and Tara Chand Parakh and copy of the said notice under Section 24(1) of the PBPT Act was also endorsed to the designated partner of the petitioner Shri Aditya Lodha. The said show cause notice was issued on 21.08.2017 and simultaneously, one of the bank accounts of the petitioner was also provisionally attached under Section 24(3) of the PBPT Act on 21.08.2017.
(3.) After issuance of show cause notice under section 24(1) of the PBPT Act, an enquiry was conducted by the respondent No.3 and after taking into consideration the reply to the show cause notice filed by Aditya Parakh and Tara Chand Parakh, the respondent No.3 passed an order under Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act on 18.11.2017 and referred the matter to the adjudicating authority. On receiving the said reference under Section 24(5) of the PBPT Act, the adjudicating authority - respondent No.4 issued a show cause notice to Shri Aditya Lodha under section 26(1) of the PBPT Act on 18.12.2017 and asked him to submit his response by 30.01.2018 either personally or through an advocate/authorized representative.;