As per the case facts, a company purchased a property, and later, its shareholdings were mostly acquired by other entities whose directors were also involved in the purchasing company. Subsequently, ... a notice was issued under the 2016 Act, suggesting the property was Benami, leading to its provisional attachment. The High Court ruled that the 2016 Act did not apply retrospectively and quashed the notice. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the 2016 Amendment to the Benami Property Transactions Act has a prospective or retroactive application. Finally, the Supreme Court declared certain provisions, specifically Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act, unconstitutional for being arbitrary and violating constitutional rights. It also found the forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended 1988 Act unconstitutional due to its arbitrary nature. The Court emphasized that the 2016 Amendment Act introduced substantive changes, not merely procedural ones, and thus, its punitive forfeiture provisions can only be applied prospectively, meaning they cannot be used for transactions predating the 2016 Act. The Court affirmed that existing proceedings for past transactions cannot continue under these new provisions, and the prior interpretation of Section 4 remains applicable.