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=769628 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769628 Money Laundering - challenge to impugned notice issued under Section 8 (4) of PMLA and Rule 5 (2) of the Rules - such a notice can be issued prior to a formal order of confiscation by the Special Court under Section 8(6) of the PMLA or not - HELD THAT:- A meaningful reading of the notice in the light of section 8 (4) of the PMLA and Rule 5 (2) of the Rules would reveal that the order dated August 22, 2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (whereby the Provisional Attachment Order was confirmed) forms the foundation of the impugned eviction notice. The said notice is in effect a statutory consequence of the order dated August 22, 2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. As regards the petitioner's contention that there is nothing on record to show that the provisions of Rule 5 (1) of the Rules have been complied with, this Court is of the prima facie view that non-compliance or belated compliance with the provisions of Rule 5 (1) would not at the threshold vitiate a notice under Rule 5 (2) of the Rules. Rule 5 (1) contemplates notice of the attachment to the Registrar having jurisdiction over the area where the property is situated requiring the Registrar not to transfer or create any interest in the property till further orders are passed. The purpose of such provision is clearly different from that of Rule 5 (2). While the former provision is aimed at avoiding/preventing encumbrance and transfer of title, the latter is aimed at securing possession thereof. Both are important but non compliance or belated compliance of one would not vitiate the lawful compliance with the other. The point that the notice impugned has been issued after 2 years 9 months is also not appealing. The statute does not provide for a mandatory time limit for such notice to be issued. In such situation the length of time taken by the Respondents to issue the notice impugned cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner in the facts of the present case. This Court, therefore, feels that the petitioner should be left free to approach the Appellate Tribunal and get the hearing of the stay application done expeditiously. Since the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution it would be just and proper for this Court to request the Appellate Tribunal before whom the petitioner's appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA is pending to dispose of the petitioner's appeal as expeditiously as possible. Insofar as the petitioner's application for stay of the order dated August 22, 2022 is concerned, this Court would request the Appellate Tribunal to consider the same on priority basis and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2 months from date. Conclusion - i) The eviction notice dated November 19, 2024 issued under Section 8(4) of the PMLA and Rule 5(2) of the Rules is prima facie valid and within jurisdiction. ii) The petitioner's challenge to the eviction notice is premature before the High Court given the pending appeal and stay application before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA. Petition disposed off. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530