TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 an appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 lay against the issuance of notice under Section 8(1) in the facts of the case. (ii) Whether the objections regarding defective recording of reasons to believe, lack of compliance with the prescribed notice period and related procedural defects could be examined only by the Adjudicating Authority at the first instance.
Issue (i): Whether an appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 lay against the issuance of notice under Section 8(1) in the facts of the case.
Analysis: The appellate remedy under Section 26 was treated as ordinarily available against an order of the Adjudicating Authority, but not so as to convert every procedural step under Section 8(1) into an independently appealable order. The Tribunal held that interference at the stage of notice could arise only in exceptional cases of grave hardship, abuse of law, irreparable prejudice or injustice on the face of the record. On the facts, no such exceptional circumstance was found because only seized files were involved and the matter could be effectively examined in the adjudicatory proceedings.
Conclusion: The appeal was not entertained as a general challenge to the Section 8(1) notice, though the possibility of exceptional maintainability was recognised in principle.
Issue (ii): Whether the objections regarding defective recording of reasons to believe, lack of compliance with the prescribed notice period and related procedural defects could be examined only by the Adjudicating Authority at the first instance.
Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that there was prima facie substance in some of the objections, including issues relating to the recorded reasons to believe and service of notice. However, it held that those objections should first be placed before the Adjudicating Authority, which was expected to decide them on merits. To ensure fairness, the Tribunal directed that after the reply was filed, the hearing should be conducted by another Member (Law), who would consider the appellants' contentions independently and decide them in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The objections were directed to be decided first by the Adjudicating Authority, with a further appellate remedy preserved after the retention order, if necessary.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of with a protective procedural direction for fresh consideration before a different Member (Law), while leaving the substantive objections to be decided in the statutory proceedings under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to a notice at the Section 8(1) stage of PMLA is not ordinarily maintainable unless exceptional hardship or manifest injustice is shown, and procedural objections should ordinarily be first adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority.
TaxTMI 
