https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775076 The HC allowed the writ petition challenging ED's attachment of fixed deposits. The court held that mere existence of statutory appeal remedy does not render writ petition non-maintainable, distinguishing between maintainability and entertainability per SC precedent. Regarding ED's jurisdiction, the court ruled that ED cannot investigate matters not covered by the charge sheet unless the appropriate investigating agency registers a complaint based on ED's intimation. The essential ingredient for ED jurisdiction is presence of a predicate offence and proceeds of crime linked thereto. Since ED failed to demonstrate that the attached fixed deposits (created in January 2025) were proceeds of crime from the coal allocation scam, and could not trace proceeds of crime to the predicate offence despite decade-long investigation, the attachment order suffered from jurisdictional error. The court emphasized ED lacks jurisdiction to proceed on "phantoms" from charge sheets without establishing clear linkage between proceeds of crime and predicate offence. The impugned attachment order was set aside. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2025 13:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775076 The HC allowed the writ petition challenging ED's attachment of fixed deposits. The court held that mere existence of statutory appeal remedy does not render writ petition non-maintainable, distinguishing between maintainability and entertainability per SC precedent. Regarding ED's jurisdiction, the court ruled that ED cannot investigate matters not covered by the charge sheet unless the appropriate investigating agency registers a complaint based on ED's intimation. The essential ingredient for ED jurisdiction is presence of a predicate offence and proceeds of crime linked thereto. Since ED failed to demonstrate that the attached fixed deposits (created in January 2025) were proceeds of crime from the coal allocation scam, and could not trace proceeds of crime to the predicate offence despite decade-long investigation, the attachment order suffered from jurisdictional error. The court emphasized ED lacks jurisdiction to proceed on "phantoms" from charge sheets without establishing clear linkage between proceeds of crime and predicate offence. The impugned attachment order was set aside. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775076