https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431489 COVID-19 limitation-extension orders did not extend the fixed 180-day subsistence period of a provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, because that period is a substantive statutory lifespan rather than a filing limitation. The attachment therefore expired on its own timeline. Quashing the provisional attachment did not automatically bring Section 8 adjudication proceedings to an end, since adjudication is a separate statutory process proceeding independently on its own merits. The challenge to the attachment could succeed, but consequential relief could not be treated as automatic where the adjudicatory stage remained legally distinct and capable of continuing in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Dec 2022 09:29:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431489 COVID-19 limitation-extension orders did not extend the fixed 180-day subsistence period of a provisional attachment under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, because that period is a substantive statutory lifespan rather than a filing limitation. The attachment therefore expired on its own timeline. Quashing the provisional attachment did not automatically bring Section 8 adjudication proceedings to an end, since adjudication is a separate statutory process proceeding independently on its own merits. The challenge to the attachment could succeed, but consequential relief could not be treated as automatic where the adjudicatory stage remained legally distinct and capable of continuing in accordance with law. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 12 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431489