Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The case involves a challenge to a seizure order issued u/s 8(3) of PMLA 2002. The investigation, which should have been completed within 365 days as per Section 8(3)(a) of the Act, has not been concluded. The court held that since the investigation has not been completed, the order of seizure cannot continue. It was noted that if the investigation is not completed within the specified time frame, the attachment or seizure would lapse. Therefore, the impugned seizure order by the Adjudicating Authority was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal.
The case involves a challenge to a seizure order issued u/s 8(3) of PMLA 2002. The investigation, which should have been completed within 365 days as per Section 8(3)(a) of the Act, has not been concluded. The court held that since the investigation has not been completed, the order of seizure cannot continue. It was noted that if the investigation is not completed within the specified time frame, the attachment or seizure would lapse. Therefore, the impugned seizure order by the Adjudicating Authority was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
