ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) ruled on Monday that fictitious property transactions, even those executed before the enactment of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017, are subject to its provisions.

IHC Justice Mohammad Azam Khan dismissed a writ petition filed by retired Brig Imtiaz Ahmed, challenging a notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue under the law.

The notice alleged that a property in Islamabad’s F-10/4 sector, purchased by the petitioner in 1999, was held under a “benami” (fictitious) arrangement.

Brig Imtiaz Ahmed argued that the 2017 law could not be applied retrospectively to a transaction from 1999.

Rules the law has retrospective effect, applies to transactions made before its promulgation

He also contended that the notice violated constitutional protections against double jeopardy, as he had already been acquitted in a related NAB case.

The counsel of the Federal Board of Revenue, Hafiz Ihsan Khokhar, told the court that the Benami Act applied regardless of when the transaction occurred, as long as the property was still held under a benami arrangement.

Justice Muhammad Azam Khan held the offences under NAB laws (accumulating assets beyond known income) and the Benami Act (holding property under fictitious names) were distinct, thus not violating constitutional protections.

The court concluded that the petitioner should have contested the notice before the Adjudicating Authority under the Benami Act instead of approaching the high court prematurely.

The court cited Supreme Court precedents stating that writ petitions against show-cause notices are generally not maintainable.

The property was purchased in 1999, with an irrevocable power of attorney executed in the petitioner’s favour. In 2000, NAB accused Brig. Imtiaz of owning assets beyond his means, including this property.

He was acquitted in 2015, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision in 2019.

The petitioner later sought an NOC for the property, which was granted in 2020. However, in 2022, the Benami authorities issued a fresh notice, leading to this petition.

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the authority of the Benami Tribunal to examine the case.

Published in Dawn, March 25th, 2025