TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 writ petition could be entertained to quash an attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 when the provisional attachment had already been confirmed and the petitioner had a statutory remedy before the Special Court.
Analysis: The attachment had been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the trial under that Act was pending before the Special Court for PMLA cases. In that situation, the petitioner was required to seek relief before the Special Court under Section 8(7) of the Act for lifting of the attachment, rather than invoke writ jurisdiction to set aside the attachment directly.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy before the Special Court under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
TaxTMI 
