The petitioner, in writ petitions, challenged a set of show-cause notices issued under sub-section (3) of section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The fundamental point of contention was the unconscionable and illegal “retrospective applicability” of the 1988 Act.

Held, that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court  in Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd v. UOI  (2020)  421 ITR 483 (Cal)(HC)  which had interpreted the amendment Act of 2016 to the 1988 Act to be prospective in nature.In Joseph Isharat v. Rozy Nishikant Gaikwad  (2017)  (5) ABR 706  (Bom) (HC) and in Niharika Jain v. UOI  2019 SCC Online Raj 1640 had returned similar findings of law. In so far as the operation of the amendment Act of 2016 to the 1988 Act was concerned, that is, that the amendment Act of 2016 would apply prospectively. However, on a special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court the Supreme Court had passed an order stating that the operation of the impugned order in so far as it holds the 2016 amendment of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988 was prospective in nature, shall remain stayed. Hence the reference referred to in section 24(5) of the 1988 Act shall not be treated as final but only as provisional during the whole period the writ petitions were pending before this court. Subject to its result, the reference would be treated as final. Thereafter, time to pass the adjudication order under section 26(7) of the 1988 Act would start to run. Hence, the authorities were not to take any further steps in the matter till the disposal of these writ petitions and the petitioners shall not sell, otherwise transfer, deal with, encumber or part with possession of the properties in question till the disposal of the writ petitions. Court observed that the effect of an order of stay in a pending appeal before the Supreme Court does not amount to any declaration of law  but is only binding upon the parties to the proceedings and at the same time, such interim order does not destroy the binding effect of the judgment of the High Court as a precedent because while granting the interim order, the Supreme Court had no occasion to lay down any proposition of law inconsistent with the one declared by the High Court. The decision of the High Court will have the force of binding precedent only in the State or territories on which the court has jurisdiction. In other States or outside the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court it may, as best, have only persuasive effect.