https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469728 A show cause notice under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 did not violate Article 20(3), because notice and summons at the information-gathering stage before arrest do not amount to compelled self-incrimination; that challenge failed. Writ interference was also refused on the ground of alleged absence of reason to believe and non-application of mind, because Section 8 requires the Adjudicating Authority to consider the reply, hear the affected person, and make an independent determination on the materials before it; the noticee could raise all factual and legal objections there. The writ petition was therefore treated as premature, with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy. en-us Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jul 2026 20:42:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469728 A show cause notice under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 did not violate Article 20(3), because notice and summons at the information-gathering stage before arrest do not amount to compelled self-incrimination; that challenge failed. Writ interference was also refused on the ground of alleged absence of reason to believe and non-application of mind, because Section 8 requires the Adjudicating Authority to consider the reply, hear the affected person, and make an independent determination on the materials before it; the noticee could raise all factual and legal objections there. The writ petition was therefore treated as premature, with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469728