https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200870 Summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were upheld as valid because they were issued under the statutory power in Section 50(2) and Section 50(3), and Section 68 saves proceedings from invalidity for mistake, defect or omission when they are substantially in conformity with the Act. The challenge that Section 420 IPC had been added to the scheduled offences only later was rejected as unsustainable, and the court found no basis to resist appearance in the investigation. The process under Section 50 was also held not to infringe Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The summons was therefore treated as within jurisdiction. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 06:08:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200870 Summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were upheld as valid because they were issued under the statutory power in Section 50(2) and Section 50(3), and Section 68 saves proceedings from invalidity for mistake, defect or omission when they are substantially in conformity with the Act. The challenge that Section 420 IPC had been added to the scheduled offences only later was rejected as unsustainable, and the court found no basis to resist appearance in the investigation. The process under Section 50 was also held not to infringe Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The summons was therefore treated as within jurisdiction. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 27 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200870