9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value given in section 2(zb) of the Act, 2002, it is to be taken as on the date of its acquisition or possession, as the case may be. There are no reasons to cause interference in the interim order passed by the Adjudicating Authority though it kept the legal issue open with liberty to the Appellant to raise it appropriately but Tribunal was requested to decide the legal issue. It is observed that the cross examination of the witness may be part of the principle of natural justice but it cannot be sought for the sake of it and even in the case, issue for cross examination is not even made out. The proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority is otherwise to be completed within 180 days as per the provisions of the Act of 2002. The appeal is accordingly fails and dismissed. - JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHAIRMAN AND V. ANANDARAJAN, MEMBER For the Appellant : Ms. Stuti Gujral, Ms. Shaurya Singh, Udipto Kausak Sharma and Vipin Kumar, Advs. For the Respondent : Ms. Nidhi Raman and Akash Mishra, Advs. JUDGMENT FPA-PMLA-5850/DLI/2023 1. This Appeal under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Short the Act of 2002) has been filed to challenge the order dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of value in excess to the proceeds of crime for the reasons that value of the attached property was not taken on the current market value as on the date of the attachment. The value of the attached property was taken as on the date of its acquisition many years back. The Respondent should not have the taken value of the property as on the date of attachment and in that case there would have no reasons to attach thirteen properties. The value of proceeds of crime is of Rs. 78,39,82,343/- but as against the aforesaid, the Respondent have attached the property worth of Rs. 216,84,36,000/-. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant gave reference to section 2(1)(u) (zb) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (In short the Act of 2002 ). The provision defines proceeds of crime and value respectively. Definition has been referred to impress upon the Tribunal to give proper meaning to the word value defined in section 2(u) of the Act, 2002. The word value used therein should denote the market value of the property as on the date of the attachment. It cannot be the value of the property as on the date of its acquisition. To clarify the aforesaid, it is submitted that if the proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue at this stage. The short legal issue is regarding value of the property. 11. According to the Appellant, value of the property sought to be attached should be at the current market price on the date of attachment. As per the definition of word value given under section 2(1)(zb), the value of the property would be taken as on the date of acquisition. The prayer of the Appellant is to take a different meaning of word value then defined under the Act of 2002. 12. The argument is per say unsustainable as neither the Tribunal nor any Court can give different meaning to the word defined under the same enactment. The definition of word value given in section 2(zb) is very clear and thereby the Respondent have taken the value of the property as on the date of its acquisition. It is as per the provision of the Act, 2002. 13. The Counsel for the Appellant has referred press release where the value of the property was taken as on the date of the attachment. It is submitted press release nowhere indicate assessment of value of the property said to have on the current market value as on the date of attachment. It may be that in the press release, the market value of the property is also i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property etc. According to the Appellant, the property so attached by the Respondent was not derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence but the value of such property. The value of the attached property has been taken as per section 2(1)(zb). It has been questioned by the Appellant. According to the Appellant, definition of value applied for the attachment of the property in question is not proper rather the meaning of word value of any such property should have been on the current market value for the purpose of attachment of the property on equivalent value to the proceeds of crime. The Respondent should not have applied the definition of the value given under section 2(1)(zb) of the Act for the purpose of attachment of the property. 18. We find that as per the definition word value in section 2(1)(zb), it should be fair market value of any property on the date of its acquisition for any purpose or if such date cannot be determined, the date on which such property is possessed by such person. 19. In view of the definition of word value give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. We find that the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent to be acceptable and otherwise this Tribunal or for that even any Court is not having jurisdiction to re-write the provision of a Statute. If we accept the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant for giving different meaning to the word value than defined under section 2(1) (zb) of the Act, it would be to re-write the provision going beyond our jurisdiction. 24. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant had tried to pursue this Tribunal to take different meaning of word value in the context it is required for giving proper interpretation to the provision of Act of 2002. The reference of the judgment in the case of Jagdish Chand Sapehia v. State of Himachal Pradesh in SCC Online HP 1533 was given. Para 28 to 35 of the said judgment was referred and are quoted hereunder : 28. The view we take is forfeited by law. The principles of interpretation of a statute are now well settled. A statute is an edit of the Legislature (Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works (Private) Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Stamp, U.P., AIR 1968 SC 102 (Three Judges)), and the conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is to seek the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. In K.P. Sudhakaran and another v. State of Kerala and others, (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 386, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once a statutory rule is made without providing any exceptions, it is not possible to carve out exceptions to such rule by judicial interpretation. 25. In para 33, it has been held that same word may mean one thing in one context and another in a different context but in para 31, it was categorically held that statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with respect to the other provision in the same Act, so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. In para 35, referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in K.P. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala [2006] 5 SCC 386, it was held that once a statutory rule is made without providing an exceptions, it is not possible to carve out exceptions to such rule by any judicial interpretation. The judgment of the Apex Court (supra) goes against the Appellant who were insisting to take a different meaning of word value then defined in section 2(zb) of the Act, 2002. One and the same word can be given two meaning when it is not defined under the Statute and is to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he law. The definition of value given in section 2(zb) of the Act is unambiguous. The value of the property would be as it was on the date of its acquisition or the possession. Any other meaning may lead to ambiguity. It may even lead to serious dispute on the value of the property as would exist in this case where Appellant has taken valuation report from the valuer not accepted by the Respondents. 28. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also referred following judgments to support her arguments : (1) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 1 SCR 941. (2) K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India [1984] 1 SCC 43. (3) Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3/52 GST 355 (SC)/[2016] 15 SCC 785. (4) Shahid Balwa v. Directorate of Enforcement 2013 SCC Online Del 2208. (5) Prem Singh v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate [2014] 45 taxmann.com 534/126 SCL 194 (Delhi)/2014 SCC Online Del 2706. (6) Kalpena Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 2018 SCC Online Bom 304. (7) Madhumilan Syntax (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India 1984 taxmann.com 10 (MP)/1984 SCC Online MP 210. (8) Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi [2002] 6 SCC 635. (9) Sampad Narayan Mukherjee v. Union of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even if the Respondent had taken current market value of the property, as on the date of the attachment in few case, this Tribunal cannot perpetuate the illegality committed by the Department, if any. 32. In the light of the discussions made above, we do not find that a ground is made out to seek cross examination of the two officers. It is when cross examination of the officer is sought for valuation of the property attached and that too as on the date of attachment while as per the definition of value given in section 2(zb) of the Act, 2002, it is to be taken as on the date of its acquisition or possession, as the case may be. We accordingly find no reasons to cause interference in the interim order passed by the Adjudicating Authority though it kept the legal issue open with liberty to the Appellant to raise it appropriately but Tribunal was requested to decide the legal issue and accordingly we have passed the order after considering the legal issue raised before us. 33. Before parting with the order, we may observe that the cross examination of the witness may be part of the principle of natural justice but it cannot be sought for the sake of it and even in the case, issue fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
