COVID-19 limitation exclusion applied to provisional attachment confirmation, while pension account operation was protected despite attachment.
The 180-day period for confirmation of provisional attachment under money-laundering law was treated as computable after excluding the COVID-19 period directed by the Supreme Court, because the outer time limit was regarded as a mandatory procedural safeguard. On that basis, the confirmation order was not considered time-barred. The tribunal also held that attachment should not prevent receipt of pensionary benefits, so the bank account used for pension could remain operative for that limited purpose, while the existing balance in the account was left untouched.
Issues: (i) Whether the period excluded by the Supreme Court for COVID-19 limitation purposes applies to computation of the 180-day period for confirmation of provisional attachment under the money-laundering law; (ii) whether the bank account used for receipt of pension could be kept operative despite attachment.
Issue (i): Whether the period excluded by the Supreme Court for COVID-19 limitation purposes applies to computation of the 180-day period for confirmation of provisional attachment under the money-laundering law.
Analysis: The statutory scheme provides that provisional attachment has effect only for a period not exceeding 180 days and ceases thereafter unless duly dealt with within the prescribed framework. The Court considered the Supreme Court orders extending/excluding limitation during the COVID-19 period and treated them as applicable to proceedings where a prescribed outer time limit governs completion of the process. It relied on the statutory character of the 180-day period as a mandatory procedural safeguard and accepted the view that the COVID-19 exclusion operates while computing that period. On that basis, the confirmation order was not treated as having been passed after expiry of the operative period.
Conclusion: The challenge to the confirmation order on the ground of expiry of 180 days failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the bank account used for receipt of pension could be kept operative despite attachment.
Analysis: The Court accepted that pension is a recurring entitlement and that attachment should not prevent receipt of pensionary benefits. At the same time, it balanced the attachment by directing that the amount already lying in the account would remain untouched and would not be withdrawn by the appellant.
Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to operate the pension account for receipt of pension, while the existing balance was to remain intact.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of permitting operation of the pension account, while the main challenge to the confirmation of attachment was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory period for confirmation of provisional attachment may be computed after excluding the COVID-19 period where the Supreme Court has directed exclusion of time for judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and attachment should not be used to obstruct receipt of pensionary benefits.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
