Petitioner challenged order of provisional attachment and confiscation proceedings under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 on the ground that date of transaction for Benami properties was before Amendment Act came into force, hence the proceedings ought to be quashed. Respondents admitted that transactions took place before amendment act came into force, but raised objection that a review petition was pending hearing before Apex Court. Following the ratio in UOI v. Ganpati Dealcom (P.) Ltd ( 2022)) 141 taxmann. com 389/ 289 Taxman 177/ 447 ITR 108 ( SC), the court held that where date of transaction for Benami properties was before Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 came into force, provisional order of attachment and order of reference were liable to be quashed.