Consolidation of Appeals & Interim Orders by Appellate Tribunal

The court directed that the appeals challenging the show cause notice and the Enforcement Directorate's appeal against the 2018 order be considered together by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner can challenge the 2021 provisional attachment order before the Tribunal, which will adjudicate the appeals and make a decision. The interim order staying the attachment order and proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority will continue until resolved by the Appellate Tribunal. The court clarified that its interim orders would not affect the final merits of the case, which will be determined by the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to provisional attachment order (PAO) dated 7th June, 2021 under PMLA Act.
Res judicata application due to previous PAO dated 04.01.2018.
Allegations raised against the Petitioner in the impugned PAO.
Validity of show cause notice dated 13th July, 2021.
Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal under PMLA Act.
Consideration of Supreme Court judgment in B.L.A Industries Pvt. Ltd case.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners challenged the provisional attachment order (PAO) dated 7th June, 2021, issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act), along with the show cause notice dated 13th July, 2021. They contended that the impugned PAO was illegal and without jurisdiction, citing a previous PAO issued in 2018 that was not approved by the Adjudicating Authority, which had concluded that no case was made out against the petitioner for money laundering. The respondents accepted notice and were granted time to file a reply.

2. The petitioners argued that the impugned PAO of 2021 was based on the same facts as the previous PAO of 2018, and the FIR and transactions were identical in both cases. The Adjudicating Authority had previously ruled in favor of the petitioner in 2018, finding no wrongdoing in generating proceeds of crime or laundering them. Despite this, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued a show cause notice in 2021, which was also challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal.

3. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment from 2022 regarding the legality of the coal block allotment, which absolved the petitioner of any alleged illegality. The ED argued that the petition should be heard by the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act, as it was now constituted. The court noted that the entire issue should be considered comprehensively by the Appellate Tribunal to avoid conflicting rulings and multiplicity of proceedings.

4. Consequently, the court directed that the appeals challenging the show cause notice and the ED's appeal against the 2018 order be considered together by the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner was permitted to raise challenges to the 2021 PAO before the Appellate Tribunal, which would adjudicate the appeals and pass a decision in accordance with the law. The interim order staying the PAO and proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority would continue until disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal.

5. The court emphasized that none of the interim orders or observations made would impact the ultimate merits of the case to be decided by the Appellate Tribunal. The petition and all pending applications were disposed of, subject to further orders by the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA Act.

---