https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281560 The court upheld the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 5.8.2015, dismissing the appeal without any costs. The court found that Rule 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Appeal) Rules, 2005 was not invalid, emphasizing the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. It determined that the Authority had sufficient "reason to believe" for the provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Act, which was justified to preserve the property temporarily. The court clarified that the orders under Sections 5(1) and 8 were independent, with Section 8 proceedings being adversarial and judicial. Additionally, it concluded that the reverse burden under Section 24 and the requirement for statements under Section 50 were not problematic in the context of the Act. en-us Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Jun 2019 07:42:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281560 The court upheld the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 5.8.2015, dismissing the appeal without any costs. The court found that Rule 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Appeal) Rules, 2005 was not invalid, emphasizing the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. It determined that the Authority had sufficient "reason to believe" for the provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Act, which was justified to preserve the property temporarily. The court clarified that the orders under Sections 5(1) and 8 were independent, with Section 8 proceedings being adversarial and judicial. Additionally, it concluded that the reverse burden under Section 24 and the requirement for statements under Section 50 were not problematic in the context of the Act. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281560