https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458060 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458060 Provisional attachment order - power of respondent to issue prohibitory order - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offences - It is the specific case of the respondent that the present case related to the forgery to the tune of Rs. 212 crores by the Shri Pradeep S. Mehta and Deepak Mehta of Vishal House by duping various banks - HELD THAT:- Pima facie the tainted nature of the property was well known to JMD Media Pvt. Ltd. as well as the buyers. The Chief Inspector of Registration, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar has issued a circular conveying that where properties have been attached under section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the properties mentioned in the attachment order should not be registered without prior approval of the concerned Department. Having received the initial payment of Rs. 6 Lakhs on 13.12.2010, M/s JMD Media Pvt. Ltd. thought it prudent to give a notice in the newspaper through their Advocates only on 8.4.2011 as regards any person having objection to the sale of the said property, Still further, an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid by the appellant to M/s JMD Media Pvt. Ltd. on 9th June, 2011 itself, whereas a communication from the Advocate stating that no objection had been received from anyone to the proposed sale of the said property has been received vide certificate dated 22.9.2011 only. Under section 8(1) of the Act, if the Adjudicating Authority on receipt of complaint under section 5(5) of the Act has reasonable belief that any person has committed an offence under section 3 of the Act or is in possession of proceeds of crime, a notice is to be served upon that person within the prescribed time prescribed calling upon him to indicate its source of income, earning or assets, out of which or by a means of which attached property has been acquired. Rather sufficient material were placed before the Adjudicating Authority to show and prove that there was no flow of income from the alleged offenders to the appellant or the co-purchasers and that the said property was purchased / acquired out of their legitimate and legal income, earnings or assets. However, without appreciating the said evidence, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment order of the property which was purchased bonafide by the appellant out of its legitimate and legal income. Therefore, the order confirming the provisional attachment order, without taking into account the material placed on record before him, is also bad in law. As regards the appellant s contentions that reasons to believe were absent in the instant case, a perusal of the show cause notice confirmed the arguments of the respondent that the reasons to forming to such believe was on the basis of sufficient material existing in the form of CBI Chargsheet alongwith accompanying documents as well as material gathered by the Joint Director through the investigations in the case including the statement of Directors of various companies involved do find place in the said showcause notice - The attachment order cannot be lifted unconditionally in the peculiar facts of the matter. When the order of reasons to believe was passed, the concerned officer had all the facts and material before him. It is evident that speaking order in writing has been passed. On the date of execution of first document and advance payment was made, the appellants were aware of the pending litigation against the directors of the company. However, this is only prima facie view. The final conclusion in this regard is to be taken once the trial is over and in case it was decided by the special court that the appellants were innocent party, the advantage would go in their favour. There are no force in the arguments of the appellants that the impugned order dated 10th July, 2012 is arbitrary, unreasonable, high handed without jurisdiction and illegal and void. It is observed that the appellants have already paid an amount of Rs. 1.89 crores to the seller, i.e. JMD Media Pvt. Ltd. - for purchase of the attached property and the property is in the possession with the appellant. During the hearing, the learned counsel of the appellant had made a prayer as an alternative submission that possession may be allowed to be continued with them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is opined that it would be in all fairness if such permission is allowed subject to the condition that the appellant deposits the sum of Rs. 25 thousand per month for the attached properties to the respondent from the date of this order till the final disposal of the proceedings under the PML Act-2002, before the Learned Special Court. Appeal allowed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 20 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530