https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779216 HC allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned AT order dated 26.06.2024, holding that the respondent agency's retention of the appellant's property was unlawful for failure to comply with Section 20 of the PMLA. The court affirmed that Section 20 requires a fresh, independent, written "reason to believe" by an authorised officer before continued retention, and without such an order there is nothing for the AA to confirm under Section 8(3). Although the court rejected the appellant's narrow reading of Section 8(3)(a) in light of SC precedent, the retention was held violative of Article 300A and void. en-us Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779216 HC allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned AT order dated 26.06.2024, holding that the respondent agency's retention of the appellant's property was unlawful for failure to comply with Section 20 of the PMLA. The court affirmed that Section 20 requires a fresh, independent, written "reason to believe" by an authorised officer before continued retention, and without such an order there is nothing for the AA to confirm under Section 8(3). Although the court rejected the appellant's narrow reading of Section 8(3)(a) in light of SC precedent, the retention was held violative of Article 300A and void. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779216