Petitioners challenged orders of provisional attachment and confiscation of properties. Petitioners claimed that properties were acquired prior to 25-10-2016 or 1-11-2016 and such transaction could not be classified as benami retrospectively by applying Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.  High Court  relying on the Supreme Court in UOI v. Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd. [2022]289 Taxman 177/447 ITR 108/2022 SCC Online SC 1064 held that section 3 read with sections 2(a) and 5 of unamended 1988 Act which dealt with criminal proceedings were overly broad, disproportionately harsh and operate without adequate safeguards in place and thus were unconstitutional from their inception, which would mean that 2016 amendments were, in effect, creating new provisions and new offences, thus Amendment Act, 2016 was not merely procedural but prescribes substantive provisions. High Court quashed the   show cause notices, provisional attachment orders and adjudicating orders passed. SLP  of Revenue is dismissed. (AY. 2015-16)