In PMLA provisional attachment matters, the HC followed its earlier Division Bench ruling on the same common Tribunal order and materially identical facts, holding that the attachment lacked a valid reason to believe and that the adjudication notice was issued mechanically without application of mind, defects going to jurisdiction. As no fresh material justified a different view, the HC applied judicial propriety, declined to interfere, and left undisturbed the Tribunal's direction to release the properties subject to an indemnity bond.
In PMLA provisional attachment matters, the HC followed its earlier Division Bench ruling on the same common Tribunal order and materially identical facts, holding that the attachment lacked a valid reason to believe and that the adjudication notice was issued mechanically without application of mind, defects going to jurisdiction. As no fresh material justified a different view, the HC applied judicial propriety, declined to interfere, and left undisturbed the Tribunal's direction to release the properties subject to an indemnity bond.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
