TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1027
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Establishment) Act 1997 against one M/s Pranav Jewellers, Trichy on the basis of a complaint filed by one Mr. Purushothaman, S/o Anbazhagan of Trichy. Since the FIR disclosed alleged offences which constituted 'scheduled offences' under the PMLA, the respondent directorate (ED) registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR/CEZO-II/30/2023 dated 03.11.2023) under the PMLA and undertook an investigation under the said Act against Pranav Jewellers, Trichy, its founder Mr. Selvaraj Mathan, his wife Karthika and Mr. Narayanan, Branch Manager. 3. Investigation revealed that M/s Pranav Jewellers was into the business of gold jewellery with headquarters at Trichy and branches at Madurai, Chennai, Kumbakonam, Nagercoil and Coimbatore. It was learnt that the said entity has floated several investment schemes to lure its investors and cheated them by accepting investment with false promise of high returns. However, all of sudden, it closed all of its outlets, as a consequence of which, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the said M/s Pranav Jewellers, Trichy and others. 4. During investigation searches under Section 17(1) of the PMLA, 2002 were conducted on 20.11.2023 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 1078 of 2023 in the case of Pranav Jewellers in the matter of Pranay Jewellers Rakesh Karela [email protected]> 06/05/2504 15:54 Reply Defendant fio 9- Gurudev Jewellers. To The Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA, New Delhi Sir Despite numerous requests and reminders, Defendant No. 9 has yet to be served with the complete set of RUDs (Relied Upon Documents). Regrettably, the Department Applicant proceeded to file a rejoinder to the reply in a mechanical manner, without verifying whether Defendant No. 9 had submitted their response or not. In an email dated 20.02.2024, the counsel representing Defendant No 9 explicitly requested copies of the FIR, ECIR, and other relevant RUDs. Additionally, it was requested that if the Department Applicant failed to serve these documents, Defendant No. 9 be allowed to file their reply without perusing the RUDs. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, please find attached the final reply on behalf of Defendant No. 9 in the aforementioned case. It is important to note that this reply is being filed without having had the opportunity to revie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same with any documentary evidence. 9. As regards non-supply of RUDs, it is contended that the following documents were served to the appellant by e-mail on 27.12.2023 and in person on 29.12.2023 and proof of service thereof was submitted before the Ld. AA: (i) Original Notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi (ii) Reasons recorded u/s 8(1) of PMLA, 2002 by the Adjudicating Authority (iii) Note for the Defendant/complainant for compliance with reference to Notice u/s 8(1) of PMLA, 2002, as directed by the Adjudicating Authority (iv) Original Application No. 1078/2023 filed before the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi, in ECIR/MDSZO/21/2021 as numbered by Adjudicating Authority 10. With regard to the request of the appellant seeking copies of relied upon documents found during the search on the premises of other persons, the respondent contends that the same is wholly unfounded under the provisions of law. The scheme of the Act is that seizure of material/property /record and its subsequent retention is sought for during investigation/further investigation. Section 21(2) of the PMLLA only provides that the person from whom reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent in support of the legality of the search operations conducted in this case. It is inter alia stated that 'reasons to believe' under section 17(4) were duly recorded well in advance of the searches; immediately after the search and seizure, copy of the reasons recorded and materials in his possession were forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope; an Application (OA) was duly submitted before the Adjudicating Authority within a period of thirty days; thus, all the inbuilt safeguards and stringent stipulations of law were duly complied with. 13. It is further submitted that prosecution case already stands filed in the case also stated that the against the accused persons, including M/s Pranab Jewellers, on 13.04.2025, within the prescribed period of 365 days and confiscation of the seized property has been prayed for in the said prosecution complaint. The respondent has, therefore, prayed that in the light of the above, the instant appeal be dismissed. Analysis & Findings 14. I have given careful consideration to the material on record and the rival contentions of the parties. The primary argument raised on behalf of the appellant i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AA." 15. The Legal position on the subject being as above, it needs to be examined to what extent, the same has been adhered to in the present case. In this regard, the appellant has referred to the email addressed by his Authorized Representative (AR) to the Ld. Adjudication Authority during the adjudication proceedings, seeking copies of the RUDs. The first of such emails, which has been made a part of the appeal paper book, is dated 22.01.2024, wherein it is stated that the Defendant No. 9 (the appellant herein) is yet to receive the complete set of RUDs mention in the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by the Ld. AA. Specific mention was made in the email of the FIRs, Chargesheet and also the ECIR filed against the accused persons. The same was subsequently followed up by the appellant with another email dated i.e., 20.02.2024 wherein, once again, it was pointed out that the Defendant No. 9 (the appellant herein) had not received the complete set of RUDs from the complainant and the same were once again requested for. It was also stated that in the absence of the same, they would be compelled to file the reply based on the SCN and the Original Application alone. The trail of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he PMLA only provides that the person from whom records are seized/ frozen shall be entitled to copies thereof. It is too well settled that when a statute provides for a manner to do something it can only be done in that manner or not done at all. 17. In the above context, I have pursued the reasons to believe recorded by the Ld. AA in this case which is as follows: "RECORDING OF REASONS U/S 8(1) OF PMLA 2002 BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY. 1. The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as applicant) filed an Application received by this Authority on 18.12.2023 under section 17(4) of PMLA in the matter of Shri Selvaraj Mathan & Ors. for the retention of movable properties in the form of Indian Currency, gold items, digital devices & documents/records seized during searches conducted on 20.11.2023, 21.11.2023 & 22.11.2023. 2. It has been brought on record that following a complaint filed by Mr. Purushothaman, S/o Anbazhagan of Trichy, the Economic Offences Wing in Trichy initiated an investigation, resulting in the registration of FIR No. 08/2023 dated 18.10.2023 against Pranav Jewellers, Trichy. The accused individ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence. 9. There is prima facie reasons to believe that the prayer made by the applicant for the retention of movable properties in the form of Indian Currency, gold items, digital devices & documents/ records seized during searches conducted on 20.11.2023, 21.11.2023 & 22.11.2023 is justified and needs to be considered. Based on the material brought on record, it is observed that the applicant has followed the procedure as prescribed under Section 17 of PMLA 2002." 18. Upon perusal of the above reasons to believe, it is seen that while issuing the SCN, the Ld. AA has specifically relied upon FIR No. 08/2023 dated 18.10.2023 against M/s Pranav Jewellers, Trichy. Further, the Ld. AA has also relied upon the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) and Goods and Services Tax Returns (GSTRs) of M/s Pranav Jewellers and related parties. A specific submission was made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant during the course of the final arguments that copies of the FIRs were not given. There is also no confirmation that other documents such as ITRs and GSTRs were provided. There is nothing on record to show that the submission of the appellant in this regard is incorrect and the requisite docu....