https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94250 The AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, finding that the Respondent unlawfully retained seized property/documents beyond the initial 180-day period under s.8(3)(a) and failed to furnish relied-upon documents (including FIR copies, ITRs and GSTRs) to the Appellant, thereby breaching procedural fairness; disclosure of the ECIR was correctly deemed unnecessary. The Directorate lacked mandate to continue retention absent proper compliance. If a prosecution complaint has since been filed and the seized property is proposed for confiscation, its release is now governed by the order of the Special Court, and the Appellant remains at liberty to pursue available remedies before that court. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:42:58 +0530 Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94250 The AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, finding that the Respondent unlawfully retained seized property/documents beyond the initial 180-day period under s.8(3)(a) and failed to furnish relied-upon documents (including FIR copies, ITRs and GSTRs) to the Appellant, thereby breaching procedural fairness; disclosure of the ECIR was correctly deemed unnecessary. The Directorate lacked mandate to continue retention absent proper compliance. If a prosecution complaint has since been filed and the seized property is proposed for confiscation, its release is now governed by the order of the Special Court, and the Appellant remains at liberty to pursue available remedies before that court. Highlights Money Laundering Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:42:58 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94250