AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....challenged by way of this Appeal. The cross examination of the two officers was sought in reference to the "value" of the property attached after registration of the ECIR against the Appellant finding him involved in the crime. It is alleged that value of the property attached in disproportionate to value of the proceeds of crime. The value of thirteen properties attached by the Respondent is much higher to value of the proceeds of crime assessed by the Enforcement Directorate. 3. The cross examination would be to find out the value of the property and for that purpose the Learned Counsel for the Appellant even framed a question of law for its determination by this Tribunal. The question of law otherwise goes into the root of the case for the cross examination of two witnesses therefore, we would be first addressing the legal issue raised by the Appellant. 4. The legal issue is as to how value of the attached property to be determined. The facts on record show that after registration of ECIR, the Competent Authority issued a Provisional Attachment Order. It was sent to the Adjudicating Authority for passing an appropriate order within 180 days. The Adjudicating Authority c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he aforesaid method before taking "value of such property" to secure alleged proceeds of crime. The property so attached by the Respondent has been valued at a lesser rate than the current market price. If this Tribunal holds that in absence of the availability of the proceeds of crime in the hands of the Appellant, any property of equivalent value to be attached then value of property should be assessed at the current market price and in that case there would be no reasons to deny cross examination of two officers of the Department to find out the proper value of the property. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that one and same word used in the statute can be given different meaning subject to the context in which it is used, thus word "value" can be given different meaning used in different context. It may be different than what has been defined in section 2(zb) of the Act of 2002. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has cited judgment of the Apex Court and the same would be considered while dealing the argument of the Appellant. It is, however, submitted by the Counsel that cross examination, being part of the principle of natural justice, could not hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt, the Respondent have attached 34 properties after registration of ECIR. It is stated by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that value of proceeds of crime is of Rs. 78,39,82,343/-. As against the aforesaid, 13 properties for worth of at least Rs. 216,54,36,000/- has been attached. To secure the proceeds of crime, the value of the property to be attached should not be in excess to the value of the proceeds of crime. It happened because value of the attached property was not taken on current market rate but the date of its acquisition. To support value of attached property to be of Rs. 216,84,36,000/- a reference of the Valuation Report has been given. 15. The main issue for consideration is as to whether attachment of the property should be after assessment of its value on the current market price as on the date of attachment to protect the proceeds of crime. 16. To answer of the question mentioned above, it would be necessary to quote section 2(1)(u) & 2(1) (zb) of the Act of 2002. Both the provisions are quoted hereunder:- "Section 2 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be the fair market price as on the date of attachment and not on the date of acquisition. The prayer is to deviate from the definition of word "value" given under the Act of 2002. We could not persuade ourselves to accept the aforesaid arguments. It would be not only for the reasons that the Tribunal and even for that any Court of the land cannot re-write the provisions or given different meaning to a provision than provided under the Statute. The substitution of the provision of a statute by the Tribunal and even by the Court is not permissible though it can be struck down by a Constitutional Court if it is found to be ultravires to the Constitution. 20. No challenge to the word "value" defined under section 2(1)(zb) has been made before any Constitution Court. The Tribunal was inclined to defer the hearing of the Appeal for that but Appellant did not show inclination to challenge the Constitutional validity of the provision referred above. The Tribunal was even inclined to give liberty to the Appellant to first raise the legal issues before the Adjudicating Authority where it was kept open and is coming out from the perusal of the impugned order. The Learned Counsel for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t' aiding their effort as much as possible to the context. 30.The legal maxim mens or sententia legis (Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) by Legal Representatives & others, (2017) 2 SCC 629 (Seven Judges)), and Generalia specialia non derogant (General Things do not derogate from special things, OSBORNS Law Dictionary), are well settled. 31. It is also settled principle of law that the statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with respect to the other provisions in the same Act, so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. This, in fact, is the elementary rule of interpretation. (AG v. HRH Prince Ernest Augustus, (1957) 1 All ER 49; Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, (1985) 3 SCC 103 (Two Judges)). 32. Every clause of a statute should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses of the Act, so as, as far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute or series of statutes relating to the subject-matter. (M. Pantiah and others v. Muddala Veeramallappa and others, AIR 1961 SC 1107 (Five Judges)). The principle for such construction is ex visceribus actus (Newspa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntext of a provision but when the word has not been defined under the Act. 26. The Appellant has also cited the judgment in the case of D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee [1952] 2 SCC 619. Para 15 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder :- '15. These remarks are necessary for a proper understanding of the meaning of the terms employed by the statute. It is no doubt true that the meaning should be ascertained only from the words employed in the definitions, but the get-up and context are also relevant for ascertaining what exactly was meant to be conveyed by the terminology employed. As observed, by Lord Atkinson in Keates v. Lewis Merthyr Consolidated Collieries Ltd. "In the construction of a statute it is, of course, at all times and under all circumstances permissible to have regard to the state of things existing at the time the statute was passed, and to the evils which, as appears from it provisions, it was designed to remedy." If the words are capable of one meaning alone, then it must be adopted, but if they are susceptible of wider import, we have to pay regard to what the statute or the particular piece of legislation had in view. Though the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India 2019 SCC Online Cal. 150. (10) Dr. U.S. Awasthi v. Adjudicating Authority, PMLA [W.P. (C) 125 of 2023, dated 10-1-2023] before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. (11) Dr. U.S. Awasthi v. Directorate of Enforcement PMLA [FPA-PMLA-5382 (Delhi) of 2023, dated 31-1-2023] Before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal under PMLA at New Delhi. (12) Abbeys Realcon LLP v. Directorate of Enforcement PMLA [2023] 147 taxmann.com 406 Before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal under PMLA at New Delhi. (13) Jagdish Chand Sapehia (supra) (14) Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commercial Tax Officer 1994 taxmann.com 755/93 STC 95 (SC)/2 SCC 434. (15) Shamrao Vishnu Perulekar v. District Magistrate AIR 1957 SC 23. (16) D.N. Banerji (supra). (17) Anand Nivas (P.) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji's Pedhi AIR 1965 SC 414. (18) Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Axis Bank [2019] 104 taxmann.com 49 (Delhi)/2019 SCC Online Del 7854. (19) Prakash Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement [2022] 140 taxmann.com 472 (Delhi)/2022 SCC Online Del 2087. (20) Surendra Singhi v. Jt. Director, Directorate o....