<?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>Freezing orders under Section 17(1A) quashed for lack of recorded reason to believe; non-compliance with Section 17(1)/(1A) and Rules 3-4</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94254</link>
    <description>The HC quashed the impugned freezing orders dated 05.09.2018 as legally unsustainable and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Appellate Tribunal&#039;s conclusion. The court found the authorised officer&#039;s Section 17(1A) orders to be cryptic and based on mere suspicion, lacking the requisite recorded &quot;reason to believe&quot; and failing compliance with Sub-secs. (1) and (1A) of Section 17 and Rules 3-4 (Search/Seizure or Freezing) of the PMLA Rules, 2005. The HC held that freezing, being an alternative to seizure, cannot be effected on a lesser standard than a reason to believe, and noted that the Section 17(4) application improperly relied on the FIR/investigation, rendering the orders void ab initio.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:42:58 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Freezing orders under Section 17(1A) quashed for lack of recorded reason to believe; non-compliance with Section 17(1)/(1A) and Rules 3-4</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94254</link>
      <description>The HC quashed the impugned freezing orders dated 05.09.2018 as legally unsustainable and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Appellate Tribunal&#039;s conclusion. The court found the authorised officer&#039;s Section 17(1A) orders to be cryptic and based on mere suspicion, lacking the requisite recorded &quot;reason to believe&quot; and failing compliance with Sub-secs. (1) and (1A) of Section 17 and Rules 3-4 (Search/Seizure or Freezing) of the PMLA Rules, 2005. The HC held that freezing, being an alternative to seizure, cannot be effected on a lesser standard than a reason to believe, and noted that the Section 17(4) application improperly relied on the FIR/investigation, rendering the orders void ab initio.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 08:42:58 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>