https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759859 The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging provisional attachment of assets in a money laundering case. The appellant argued that prosecution complaint was filed beyond the 90-day limitation period from the provisional attachment order dated 19.01.2015. The Tribunal held that the amended limitation provision under GSR 383(E) dated 19.04.2018 applied prospectively, not retrospectively. Since the prosecution complaint was filed on 16.07.2018, within 90 days of the amendment's effective date (19.04.2018), the Directorate complied with statutory requirements. The Tribunal distinguished between clarificatory and substantive amendments, ruling this was substantive and applied prospectively. Provisional attachment remained valid during pendency of proceedings. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Oct 2024 16:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759859 The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging provisional attachment of assets in a money laundering case. The appellant argued that prosecution complaint was filed beyond the 90-day limitation period from the provisional attachment order dated 19.01.2015. The Tribunal held that the amended limitation provision under GSR 383(E) dated 19.04.2018 applied prospectively, not retrospectively. Since the prosecution complaint was filed on 16.07.2018, within 90 days of the amendment's effective date (19.04.2018), the Directorate complied with statutory requirements. The Tribunal distinguished between clarificatory and substantive amendments, ruling this was substantive and applied prospectively. Provisional attachment remained valid during pendency of proceedings. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759859