9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1070 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of application - Seeking deferment of the proceedings before Adjudicating Authority - Bench at that point of time suffered from coram non-judice as no Adjudicating Authority had been constituted in terms of Section 2 (a) read with Section 6 (1) and (2) of the PMLA, 2002 - money laundering - proceeds of crime - HELD THAT - A perusal of the Order of the Adjudicating Authority shows that at the time when the application of the Appellant was considered by the learned Chairperson, the case was only at a nascent stage. Further, a perusal of the material on record and the application filed by the Appellant does not indicate that the issue involved at that stage was of such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Bench of two Members. Section 6 does not postulate filing any application for reference to a larger Bench. When the adjudication under Section 8 of the PMLA commences and during the hearing of the matter if the Chairperson sees that the matter is of such a nature that it should be heard by a Bench of two Members then the Chairperson needs to constitute a two Member Bench. In fact, it has rightly been noted by the learned Single Judge that the application itself was not maintainable. Further, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge discloses that the matter was ready for final hearing before the Adjudicating Authority, and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is required at this juncture. The Apex Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OTHERS VERSUS CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL 2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT has observed the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition before the learned Single Judge was itself not maintainable - this Court is of the opinion that the Judgment of the learned Single Judge confirming the Order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority does not warrant any interference by this Court. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quorum of the Adjudicating Authority. 2. Non-supply of 'Reasons to Believe' for Provisional Attachment Order. 3. Maintainability of the writ petition. Summary: Quorum of the Adjudicating Authority: The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority's quorum was incomplete as per Section 2 of the PMLA, 2002. The High Court referred to a prior judgment (J Sekar vs. Union of India) which clarified that under Section 6(5)(b) of the PMLA, a Bench may consist of one or two members as deemed fit by the Chairperson. Thus, a single-member bench is permissible, and the application challenging the quorum was not accepted. Non-supply of 'Reasons to Believe': The Appellant contended that the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under Section 5(1) of the PMLA was issued without providing the 'Reasons to Believe'. The High Court reviewed the PAO and found it included detailed reasons and evidence, such as the FIR, forensic audit report, and statements from various individuals. The Court held that the PAO itself contained sufficient reasons and did not require separate documentation for each property attached. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating the Appellant should have approached the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA. The High Court supported this view, citing the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The Court referenced several judgments emphasizing that when a statutory forum is available, it should be utilized before invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. Conclusion: The High Court found no merit in the Appellant's arguments and upheld the Single Judge's decision. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Adjudicating Authority's order and the PAO were valid, and the writ petition was not maintainable.
|
