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 provisional attachment confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority continued to have effect when the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was filed beyond the period prescribed by Section 8(3)(a).
Analysis: The attachment confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority was governed by Section 8(3)(a) as it stood at the relevant time, under which the attachment continued during the pendency of proceedings relating to the offence before a court. The provision was later amended with effect from 19.04.2018 to introduce a 90-day period, and thereafter extended to 365 days. The complaint in the present matter was filed on 16.01.2020, long after the amendment had taken effect and beyond the applicable period. On that footing, the attachment could not survive, as the statutory condition for continuation of the attachment was not satisfied within time.
Conclusion: The provisional attachment had lapsed and ceased to have effect by operation of law, and the appellants succeeded on the preliminary issue.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed to the extent that the subject properties were held to be no longer under attachment, and no opinion was expressed on the pending prosecution before the Special Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the prosecution complaint is not filed within the period prescribed by Section 8(3)(a), the confirmed provisional attachment ceases to operate by force of statute.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
