https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92981 HC allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned AT order dated 26.06.2024, holding that the Respondent's continued retention of the Appellant's property was unlawful for non-compliance with Section 20 of the PMLA. The Court affirmed that Section 20(1) imposes a substantive, mandatory requirement of a fresh, independent, written "reason to believe" by an authorised officer post-seizure under Section 17, without which there is nothing for the Adjudicating Authority to confirm under Section 8(3)(a). While rejecting the Appellant's challenge to the application of Section 8(3)(a) in light of binding SC precedent, the HC concluded the retention violated Article 300A and could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:53 +0530 Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92981 HC allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned AT order dated 26.06.2024, holding that the Respondent's continued retention of the Appellant's property was unlawful for non-compliance with Section 20 of the PMLA. The Court affirmed that Section 20(1) imposes a substantive, mandatory requirement of a fresh, independent, written "reason to believe" by an authorised officer post-seizure under Section 17, without which there is nothing for the Adjudicating Authority to confirm under Section 8(3)(a). While rejecting the Appellant's challenge to the application of Section 8(3)(a) in light of binding SC precedent, the HC concluded the retention violated Article 300A and could not be sustained. Highlights Money Laundering Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:53 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92981