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: Whether the seizure and retention of cash, documents and digital devices under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had lapsed under Section 8(3) because the investigation was not completed and no prosecution complaint was filed within 365 days.
Analysis: Section 8(3) permits retention of property or seized records only during investigation for a period not exceeding 365 days or during the pendency of proceedings relating to the offence. The record showed that the investigation arising from the FIR and ECIR had not been completed, and no prosecution complaint had been filed within the statutory period. In these circumstances, the continued operation of the impugned seizure and retention order could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The seizure and the retention order had lapsed under Section 8(3) and were set aside in favour of the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
