SC directs defreezing of bank account seized under PMLA to pay statutory dues

SC directs defreezing of bank account seized under PMLA to pay statutory dues due to non observance of procedure prescribed  

ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3446 (2021) (02) SC

Important case law relied referred:
Chandra Kishor Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 266
Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs. The Chief Election   Commissioner New Delhi & Ors. (1978) 1SCC 405)

In this Special Leave Petition (SLP) the appellant company had challenged the order of the Hon’ble High under Prevention of Money Laundry Act (PMLA) 2002 and inter alia contended that the freezing of the bank accounts had prejudiced the company, as the amount in the account was made unavailable to them due to which statutory payments towards TDS, PF, ESI, Professional  Tax, Gratuity and employees’ deductions to be made to the Competent Authorities under various enactments was withheld and the payment of salary which was due to the employees was also prevented.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court though did not interfere with initiation of proceedings under PMLA 2002 by Enforcement Directorate but admitted the SLP on the limited scope of consideration on the issue of defreezing the bank account particularly keeping in view the requirement of the appellant to make the statutory   payments even if the freezing of the account is found justified.

The important question was whether the power available to   the competent authority had been exercised in the manner as is contemplated under PMLA?

The stand of the ED was that ‘stop operation’   was requested to bank to stop the further layering/diversion   of proceeds of crime and to safeguard the proceeds of crime.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that such power is available under PMLA. But the ED stated that such powers had not been done under Section 17(1) of the   PMLA. With regard to the power available under PMLA it was stated that PMLA being a stand­alone enactment and independent process whereunder Section 71 of PMLA has an overriding affect over other laws.

When enactment contains a provision for seizure including freezing, procedure therein is to be followed

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the pre­requisite of Section 17 of PMLA providing freezing of property or   record related to information in possession, reasons to believe, recording of belief etc. also apply to freezing of   bank account.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that in the instant   case, the said procedure had not been followed by the   Authorised Officer except issuing the impugned communication to AML Officer to seek freezing.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that certainly it is not required that the communication addressed to   the Bank itself should contain all the details. But an order in the file recording the belief is necessary before   communication is issued.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that in view of the above, the freezing or the continuation thereof was without due compliance of the legal requirement and, therefore, not sustainable.

When power is available under the special enactment, question of resorting to power under general law does not arise

It was contended that the power of seizure is available   under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had been exercised and as such the freezing of the account would remain valid.

However the Apex Court rejected this contention and stated that when a special enactment contains a provision for seizure which includes freezing, the power available   therein is to be exercised and the procedure   contemplated therein is to be complied. Secondly, when the power is available under the special enactment, the question of resorting to the power under the general law does not arise. Thirdly, the power under Section 102 CrPC is to the Police Officer during the course of investigation and the scheme of the provision is different   from the scheme under PMLA.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the action sought to be sustained should be with reference to the contents of the impugned or der/communication and the same cannot be justified by improving the same through the contention raised in the objection statement or affidavit filed before the Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Authorities/Bank to defreeze the accounts and clear the cheques issued by the appellant, drawn in allowed the appeal of in the favour of the assessee of various statutory authorities.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that if any further amount is available in the account after payment of the  said statutory dues and with regard to the same any action is to be taken by the   ED within  a reasonable time, it would open to them to do so subject to compliance of   the required procedure afresh.   

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Agreement validly terminated prior to CIRP not give any enforceable right to corporate debtor
• SC explains jurisdiction of courts under NI Act for dishonour of account payee or bearer cheques
• Normal business advances adjusted against sale bills cannot be added u/s 68 of Income Tax Act
• Faceless mechanism for reopening include Central & International Tax charges
• Ground not adjudicated by 1st appellate authority cannot be decided in 2nd appeal