TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 69
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the retention of the seized articles which includes the gold in the hands of the appellant. 2. The learned counsel at the outset submitted that provisional attachment order in reference to the gold seized from the appellant has been confirmed without causing a notice. It is in violation to section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 and more so when the statement of the seized properties was disclosing the details of the seized record/ property in the name of the appellant for 57.5 KG gold. 3. In absence of a notice to the appellant, not only there was a violation of principle of natural justice but section 8(1) of the Act 2002 and accordingly the impugned order qua the appellant deserves to be set aside ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to whom the notice has been given, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that property is not involved in money laundering. The appellant was having an opportunity to invoke proviso aforesaid but failed to do so and accordingly prayer was made not to accept the only argument raised by the appellant. 6. I have considered the rival submission for the parties and perused the record carefully. To appreciate the argument of the counsel for the parties, it would be gainful to refer section 8 of the Act of 2002 and for that section 8(1) and 8(2) are quoted thus:- Section 8 8. Adjudication - (1) On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether all or any of the properties referred to in the notice issued under sub-section (1) are involved in money- laundering. Provided that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice had been issued, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that the property is not involved in money-laundering. 7. Section 8 (1) of the Act of 2002 mandates a notice of not less than 30 days to a person for indicating his source of income/earning out of which he has acquired the property attached under section 5(1) or seized under section 17 of the Act of 2002. In the instant case, the Adjudicating Authority was knowing it well that the property of the appellant is under seizure and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties. 11. In the instant case, the property under seizure was not indicated in the name of other party or person but was shown in the name of the appellant itself as is reflected from the statement of property quoted above. 12. The counsel for the respondent then emphasized to the impugned order where partners of the appellant Company were asked to represent the Company also. 13. The narration of fact given in the sub-para a and b para 63 are quoted here under:- 63 (a). The Applicant has submitted that the matter came up for physical hearing on 10/02/2022 wherein the arguments on this point were made by the respective counsels for the Applicant and the Respondents. The counsel for the Respondents stated that M/s Sanghavi B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the defendants, Shri Jigar Sanghavi was also a Director in M/s Sanghavi Bullions Pvt. Ltd. The Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority, PMLA once again offered an opportunity to the respondents to file a reply on behalf of M/s Sanghavi Bullions and the same was once again declined by the respondents. 14. The para quoted above reveals that appellant Company is a Private Limited Company. It was having shareholders other than to whom the notice was caused. One of the shareholder may be Jigar Sanghavi and Director of the said company, but it does not imply that without a notice otherwise required under section 8(1) of the Act of 2002, the order can be passed despite knowing it that property under seizure is of appellant Company. It was not o....