Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + AT Money Laundering - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 129 - AT - Money LaunderingOffence under PMLA - Non compliance of mandatory Sections and Rules - seizure of documents - validity of recording the reasons to believe, issuance of notice under Section 8(1) of the Act and seizure memos - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the appeal under section 26 may be maintainable. This Tribunal is of the view that the same may only be maintainable in exceptional circumstances where there is a great hardship and is case of abuse of law, injustice, irreparable loss and great prejudice if (party concerned) would suffer on the face of the record and material available and if the appeal is not entertained, it does not mean that the appeal against any issuance of notice under section 8(1) in every case is maintainable where exception is not created. Thus, this Tribunal is of the view that it depends upon case to case basis and nature of the hardships at this stage. In the present cases, the respondent has merely seized two files containing papers. The appellants at the appropriate time is entitled to receive the copies thereof under sub section 2 of Section 21 of the Act. This Tribunal is of the view that no exception in the present appeals has been created by the appellants. In the present appeals, having considered the nature of the seizure at present this tribunal is of the view that there is hardly any hardship if the objections raised by the appellants be decided by the Adjudicating Authority within time-bound manner. The Appellants inter-alia have challenged the validity of recording the reasons to believe, issuances of notice under Section 8(1) of the Act and seizure memos. As far as objections raised by the appellants are concerned, no doubt, prima facie, there is some substance in the arguments of the counsel for the appellants. However, in my view, the same can be raised before the Adjudicating Authority who will have to consider and decide the same. It is clarified that objection and contention if raised by the appellants before the adjudicating authority and same are not decided as per law, the appellants have always remedy to challenge the same in appeal after the retention order under section 17(4) is passed. With regards to other submission of the appellants that the discrepancies are so glaring, the same hearing officer may not be able to go against his own finding as the reason to believe orders passed by him on the face of record are defective and the notice under section 8(1) has been issued on the basis of the said defective reason to believe which would show that while issuing the notice, even the authorised officer has not cared to see the materials which were seized, otherwise such a mistake would not have happened. This tribunal directs that after filing the reply, the hearing shall be conducted by other Hon‘ble Member(Law), who shall consider all the contentions of the appellants and decide the same on merit. The present appeals and all pending applications are disposed of. The Adjudicating Authority is at liberty to fix the matters for further proceedings.
|