<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (11) TMI 1478 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462877</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging provisional attachment of two fixed deposits under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act), which had already been confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner claimed violation of Article 20(2) regarding double jeopardy. The court held that proceedings under Section 121 of the Customs Act, which deals with confiscation and penalties under Chapter XIV, do not constitute prosecution or punishment, as offences and prosecutions fall under Chapter XVI. Therefore, subsequent PML Act proceedings do not amount to double jeopardy. The court found no grounds for interference under Article 226, noting that efficacious remedies exist under the PML Act. Challenges regarding the show cause notice and Section 5 compliance should be pursued before PML Act authorities. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2025 20:35:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=837925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1478 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462877</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging provisional attachment of two fixed deposits under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act), which had already been confiscated under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner claimed violation of Article 20(2) regarding double jeopardy. The court held that proceedings under Section 121 of the Customs Act, which deals with confiscation and penalties under Chapter XIV, do not constitute prosecution or punishment, as offences and prosecutions fall under Chapter XVI. Therefore, subsequent PML Act proceedings do not amount to double jeopardy. The court found no grounds for interference under Article 226, noting that efficacious remedies exist under the PML Act. Challenges regarding the show cause notice and Section 5 compliance should be pursued before PML Act authorities. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>