https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458580 Writ interference with provisional attachment proceedings was declined because the challenge was premature and the statutory remedy before the adjudicating authority had not been exhausted. The impugned order merely extended time for filing a reply and left all issues open for decision under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. As no jurisdictional error or illegality was shown, the High Court exercised its discretionary writ power sparingly and left the petitioner's objection to be decided by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 19 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Nov 2024 19:59:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458580 Writ interference with provisional attachment proceedings was declined because the challenge was premature and the statutory remedy before the adjudicating authority had not been exhausted. The impugned order merely extended time for filing a reply and left all issues open for decision under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. As no jurisdictional error or illegality was shown, the High Court exercised its discretionary writ power sparingly and left the petitioner's objection to be decided by the adjudicating authority in accordance with law. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 19 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458580