TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounts on 15.2.2017. 3.3 Application was filed on 3.3.2017 by the respondent under the provisions of Section 17(4) of the PMLA for extending the debit freeze in pursuance of the procedure established under PMLA. Following averment was made in para 11 of the application :- "That debit freeze on the above said accounts mentioned hereinabove in para 10 has been imposed and the instant application is being filed for praying before the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority for extending the debit freeze imposed on the bank accounts in the instant matter in ECIR No. PTZO/05/2016 dated 26.12.2016 in pursuance of the procedure established under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the interest of investigation." 3.4 Following relief was prayed in OA:- "(A) allow the present O.A. and pass an order of continuation of freezing of accounts to locate the proceeds of crime in terms of section 17(4) of the PMLA for the purpose of further investigation into the matter in the interest of justice." 3.5 Reply was filed on 15.4.2017 to the OA setting out in detail that amount credited in the Bank accounts of the appellant were towards purchase of goods against invoices. Various documents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecretary to the Government of India or equivalent being head of the office or Ministry or Department or Unit, as the case may be, or any other officer who may be authorised by the Central Government, by notification, for this purpose.] [(1A) Where it is not practicable to seize such record or property, the officer authorised under sub-section (1), may make an order to freeze such property whereupon the property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with the prior permission of the officer making such order, and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned: Provided that if, at any time before its confiscation under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of Section 8 or Section 58B or sub-Section (2A) of Section 60, it becomes practical to seize a frozen property, the officer authorised under sub-Section (1) may seize such property.] (4) The authority, seizing any record or property under sub-Section (1) or freezing any record or property under sub-Section (1A) shall, within a period of thirty days from such seizure or freezing, as the case may be, file an application, requesting for retention of such record or property seized under sub-Section (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the date of freezing of the bank account. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 stipulates the maximum period of one hundred and eighty days for the purpose of adjudication under Section 8 of the Act, however, proceedings under section-5 were not initiated within the period of 180 days. 11. There is no denial on behalf of respondent that the application under Section 17 (4) filed by the adjudicating authority was not allowed. The only prayer which was made in the application was for continuation of freezing of the accounts to locate the proceed of crime in terms of section 17 (4) of PMLA for the purpose of further investigation. 12. It is a matter of fact that the application filed by the ED under section 17, sub-section (4) was not allowed. The said application filed by the ED was considered by the adjudicating authority on merit. There is no finding that it is not maintainable due to technical reason, the same was not allowed on merit of the case. The operative part of the impugned order reads as under;_ "However, as above discussed the present Application filed before this Authority is beyond the scope of t he provisions of section 17(1-A) and section 17(4). This Authority is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is neither a search carried out in terms of section 17(1) or freezing in terms of section 17(1-A). 14. The counsel for the respondent states that in view of the direction issued by the adjudicating authority, the respondent has filed the fresh application for retention of the property. It is also admitted by him that the complaint under section 5 of PMLA was filed beyond the period of one hundred and eighty days of seizure. The counsel for the appellant on the other hand states that the complaint in terms of section 5 of PMLA is filed beyond expiry of 12 months. 15. We have been informed that the fresh application under section 17 as well as the complaint in terms of section 5 and other proceedings are pending against the appellant. As agreed by both the parties, we are only concerned with the first application filed by the respondent under section 17 of the Act, we should not make any comments with regard to 2nd application filed by the respondent under section 17 or complaint in terms of section 5 of PMLA. 16. Admittedly, in the present case, the application filed by the respondent under section 17(4) was not allowed. The said order is become final between the parties as....