Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
A bank cannot freeze a customer's account on its own initiative merely because transactions appear inconsistent with declared income. The Court held that, absent a complaint, criminal proceeding, recovery action, competent authority order, or lawful lien, the bank had no legal foundation to assume an investigative role or deny operation of the current account. It further held that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and RBI suspicious transaction reporting instructions do not authorise freezing the entire account; at most, the statute contemplates action by the competent authority under the statutory scheme. The freezing was therefore arbitrary, violated natural justice and the right to carry on business and livelihood, and the account was directed to be de-frozen forthwith.
A bank cannot freeze a customer's account on its own initiative merely because transactions appear inconsistent with declared income. The Court held that, absent a complaint, criminal proceeding, recovery action, competent authority order, or lawful lien, the bank had no legal foundation to assume an investigative role or deny operation of the current account. It further held that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and RBI suspicious transaction reporting instructions do not authorise freezing the entire account; at most, the statute contemplates action by the competent authority under the statutory scheme. The freezing was therefore arbitrary, violated natural justice and the right to carry on business and livelihood, and the account was directed to be de-frozen forthwith.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
