TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udicating Authority for readjudication within 180 days from the date of this order. The Adjudicating Authority shall give an opportunity of hearing under section 8 of PM LA to all the parties claiming rights in the seized property. The Adjudicating Authority shall in accordance with the provisions of sub section (2) of section 8 of PMLA, record a finding whether all or any of the jewelleries seized are involved in money laundering and accordingly pass an order, if any, under sub-section (3) of section 8 of PMLA. This Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on merits of the source of income, earning or assets out of which or by means of which the appellant has acquired property seized. During the pendency of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, the retention order shall continue and all the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of seized jewelries. Parties to bear their own cost.' 3. Reply has also been filed on behalf of respondent. The prayer sought by the appellant is strongly opposed on behalf of respondent. 4. It is alleged by the appellant in the review application that the said impugned order dated 31.12.2015 suffers from grave jurisdictional error as well ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction and special jurisdiction has always been exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to common law and equity must remain strangers to appeal under the Act unless statutorily embodied. This Tribunal has no right or jurisdiction to them. In fact, if the Tribunal is allowed to remand the proceedings the time frame prescribed for adjudication and for that matter retention of properties under the Act, without any adjudication about the properties being involved in money laundering will get nullified and the Department will have an unbridled discretion to continue the proceedings and retention of properties for indefinite period in excess of the statutory time limits By the impugned order of remand, this Hon'ble Tribunal has allowed the Respondent to retain the seized jewelleries for a period exceeding the prescribed period of 180 days allowed under the Act. It is the submission of the Applicant that no Court or Tribunal can pass an order contrary to the statutory provisions. In fact, even the Supreme Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicant being in possession of proceeds of crime, without a crime there cannot be proceeds of crime. (v) That the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Adjudicating Authority has not applied his mind to the material placed before him before issuing a notice under section 8 (1) of the Act. On receipt of the original application the Adjudicating Authority has issued notice to show cause dated 22.10.2014 calling upon the Applicant to indicate the sources of income etc. by which he has acquired the property provisionally attached under sub section (1) of Section 5 of PMLA. It was only later on that the second show cause notice dated 20.11.2014 was issued. Even the said second show cause notice talks of provisionally attached properties and not seized properties. The Applicant during the hearing has mentioned about the original show cause notice dated 22.10.2014 after an inspection was made by the Applicant's Advocates of the records before the Adjudicating Authority. A true certified copy of the said Notice dated 22.10.2014 has since been obtained by the Applicant, a copy whereof is annexed with the application. The said defect in the notice is indicative of complete nonappli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has also referred various decisions in support of his submission in support of the grounds raised by the appellant in the review petition. 5. Mr. Vikas Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has strongly opposed the prayer of the review application. It is argued by him that review of the order dated 31.12.2015 passed by this Ld. Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not maintainable and even otherwise the same cannot be heard by this Tribunal in view of pendency of writ-petition challenging the same very order and the relief sought is also similar to the relief claimed therein. It is stated by him that Smt. Ritu Khaitan the wife of the applicant has filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1766 of 2016 against the said very same order dated 31.12.2015 passed by this Ld. Appellate Tribunal for the Prevention of Money Laundering Act before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. The same order cannot be challenged in two different forums. He further argues that the writpetitioners ought to have been impleaded as appellant or the respondents in the main appeal filed by the appellant and as the appellants' wife is not prepared to withdraw the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ged. That on 13.02.2015 the Hon'ble division Bench passed the following order:- 'Pending further orders, the respondents are restrained from initiating any further steps pursuant to the impugned order of attachment against appellants/petitioners' 8. Apparently in the said LPA after passing of the said order the Respondent has been restrained from initiating any steps pursuant to the said attachment order against the appellants/petitioners. 9. It is also admitted fact that in the said L.P.A. the Petitioners filed a clarification Application bearing No. 3697 of 2015 on which the following order dated 27.02.2015 came to be passed: '....Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances explained in the application, we make it clear that by virtue of the said order dated 13.02.2015, all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order of provisional attachment dated 15.11.2015, including the proceedings under Section 8 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for confirmation of the provisional attachment, shall remain stayed. However, attachment of the property in question shall continue. It is further made clear that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property was seized, unless the Adjudicating Authority under Section 17(4) permits retention of the property for any longer period; (III) the fact that respondents did not invoke Section 17(4) of PMLA in the present case; (IV) the fact that only if the respondents had invoked Section 17(4) of PMLA, would the Adjudicating Authority under Section 20(4) of PMLA have authorised retention of the property for a longer period; (V) to Section 8(1),(3) & (4) of PMLA but it is contended that the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case; (VI) to Section 2(d) defining 'attachment' as 'prohibition of transfer, conversion, disposition or movement of property'. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is contended that the petitioners in the present petition are claiming only the relief of release of 'custody / possession' of the jewellery seized, while continuing to remain under attachment for which the petitioners have invoked the appellate remedy. It is further contended that the challenge in the petition to the order dated 31st December, 2015 of the Appellate Tribunal is confined to para 35 of the order, where in an appeal filed by the husband and father respectively of the ....