Retention order quashed for failing to serve mandatory 30-day s.8(1) notice; shareholder lacked authority, matter remanded for fresh adjudication

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The AT held that the impugned retention order concerning seized articles, including gold, violated natural justice by failing to issue the mandatory minimum 30-day notice under s.8(1) of the Act to require the appellant to disclose the source of income/assets; the Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that a shareholder/director could be treated as representing the appellant without documentary authorization. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand: the matter is returned to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to serve the requisite s.8(1) notice on the appellant company and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and due process.....