TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Search and seizure retention compliance requires recorded reasons and prior statutory steps before property can be lawfully retained and confirmed</h1> Search and seizure regime requires strict compliance with the temporal limit for retention and a recorded reason to believe before property may be ... Search and seizure - Compliance with the 180-day limit and prima facie satisfaction - Section 20 substantive and mandatory - Requirement of recorded 'reason to believe' for retention - Retention order and forwarding to Adjudicating Authority - Confirmation u/s 8(3) is contingent on prior Section 20 compliance - Seizure u/s 17 does not itself authorize retention - Adjudicatory oversight by the Appellate Tribunal/Adjudicating Authority - Infringement of right to property under Article 300A - HELD THAT:- Though the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is in the process of challenging the said judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that we should await the outcome of the same, however, we are not inclined to do so as the case involves attachment of property, leading to deprivation of the same for the appellant. As we are bound by the judgment in Anirudh Pratap Agarwal [2025 (10) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT] with which we agree, we see no reason to adjourn the matter any further. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the order dated 17th March, 2025, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, is hereby set aside. The pending application also stands disposed of. Issues: Whether retention/continuation of the appellant's property without a valid order under Section 20 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2017 (including recording of independent reasons, forwarding the retention order to the Adjudicating Authority and compliance with the 180-day limit and prima facie satisfaction) rendered the retention and subsequent confirmation under Section 8(3) invalid.Analysis: The Court analysed the statutory scheme of the PMLA, observing that Section 17 authorises search and seizure, Section 20(1) requires an authorised officer to record a fresh 'reason to believe' and pass a retention order for initial retention up to 180 days, Section 20(2) mandates forwarding of the retention order to the Adjudicating Authority, Section 20(3) prescribes the 180-day limit absent AA permission, and Section 20(4) requires the AA's prima facie satisfaction before adjudication under Section 8. The Court held that Section 20 is substantive and mandatory and is the legal foundation for initial retention; Section 8(3) only permits confirmation and cannot be invoked in the absence of a valid Section 20 retention order. Applying these principles to the facts, the Court noted admitted noncompliance by the Enforcement Directorate in not passing or communicating any Section 20 order yet continuing retention until adjudication.Conclusion: The retention and continued deprivation of the appellant's property without compliance with Section 20 of the PMLA was invalid; the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 17 March 2025 is set aside, with the pending application disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
