<?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>Bank-account freezing under anti-money-laundering law requires recorded reasons; writ review remains available despite an alternative statutory remedy.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105390</link>
    <description>Bank-account freezing under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act requires strict compliance with search-and-seizure safeguards, including the authorised officer&#039;s written reasons to believe based on information in possession. The High Court found that the freezing order appeared not to record those reasons and stated that later forwarding of records or proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority could not cure that foundational defect. Because the challenge alleged infringement of fundamental rights and procedural illegality, the alternative statutory remedy did not preclude writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was maintainable, and notice was issued for further consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2026 08:05:48 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=931688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Bank-account freezing under anti-money-laundering law requires recorded reasons; writ review remains available despite an alternative statutory remedy.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105390</link>
      <description>Bank-account freezing under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act requires strict compliance with search-and-seizure safeguards, including the authorised officer&#039;s written reasons to believe based on information in possession. The High Court found that the freezing order appeared not to record those reasons and stated that later forwarding of records or proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority could not cure that foundational defect. Because the challenge alleged infringement of fundamental rights and procedural illegality, the alternative statutory remedy did not preclude writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was maintainable, and notice was issued for further consideration.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2026 08:05:48 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>