TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the search, seizure and retention proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained without a properly recorded and communicated reason to believe based on relevant material. (ii) Whether the impugned order retaining the seized records was valid when the statutory procedure under Sections 17, 20 and 21 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was not complied with.
Issue (i): Whether the search, seizure and retention proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained without a properly recorded and communicated reason to believe based on relevant material.
Analysis: The statutory scheme requires the authorised officer to record reasons to believe in writing on the basis of information and material in possession before exercising powers of search, seizure or freezing. The reasons must not be a mechanical reproduction or a mere expression of suspicion. The reasoning further proceeds on the principle that where a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done only in that manner. The Tribunal also held that the affected person is entitled to know the basis on which coercive action is taken, and that reasons recorded in writing must be communicated so that an effective defence can be made.
Conclusion: The requirement of reason to believe was mandatory and its absence or non-communication vitiated the proceedings against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order retaining the seized records was valid when the statutory procedure under Sections 17, 20 and 21 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was not complied with.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the powers under Sections 17, 20 and 21 are conditioned by mandatory procedural safeguards, including recording reasons, forwarding the material in sealed cover, and adherence to the prescribed time limits for retention. It found that no prosecution complaint was pending against the appellant, no material showed a live link between the appellant and any proceeds of crime, and the impugned order did not deal with the appellant's substantive objections. On the facts, the Tribunal treated the proceedings as an abuse of process and concluded that the retention of records could not be justified.
Conclusion: The retention order was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the retention order was annulled, and the seized documents and records were directed to be returned to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Coercive measures under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can be sustained only on the basis of a written and material-supported reason to believe, and the statutory procedure governing search, seizure and retention must be strictly followed; failure to do so vitiates the action and the consequential retention order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
