Service Of Showcause Notice Via Email Valid Under PMLA Regulations: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the issue of whether all “relied upon documents” (RUDs) have been duly supplied to the noticee must be determined by the Adjudicating Authority at the threshold, before proceeding further with the case. Deciding a writ petition filed by Dipak De, Justice Krishna Rao declined to quash the show cause notice issued under Section 8(1) PMLA, but issued directions to ensure compliance with procedural safeguards relating to supply of documents.The petitioner had challenged the show cause notice dated November 25, 2025, primarily on the ground that despite repeated requests, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) failed to furnish complete RUDs as mandated under Rule 13(2) of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013. It was contended that without access to all documents relied upon by the ED, the petitioner was unable to effectively respond to the notice. The petitioner also pointed out discrepancies in dates of filing of the original application and alleged suppression of relevant materials.On the other hand, the ED and Union of India argued that the notice and documents had already been served through electronic mode, which constitutes valid service under the applicable regulations and the Information Technology Act, 2000. It was further contended that the petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy before the Adjudicating Authority, including the right to seek inspection of records, lead evidence, and challenge any adverse order by way of appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA.The High Court noted that Rule 13 permits service of notices and documents through electronic means and, therefore, the service effected via email could not be faulted. It also observed that the PMLA framework provides sufficient safeguards, including powers of the Adjudicating Authority akin to a civil court for discovery, inspection, and production of documents. Importantly, the Court found no illegality in the “reasons to believe” recorded by the Adjudicating Authority while issuing the show cause notice.However, addressing the petitioner's core grievance, the Court held that it is for the Adjudicating Authority to determine whether the documents sought by the petitioner are indeed “relied upon documents” and whether the complete set has been supplied. Emphasising procedural fairness, the Court directed that if any such documents are found to have been relied upon but not furnished, the ED must supply them before the matter proceeds further.Accordingly, the Court directed the Adjudicating Authority to first decide the issue of supply of RUDs and, if additional documents are required to be furnished, to ensure their supply within two weeks. The petitioner was also granted liberty to file a supplementary reply upon receipt of such documents. The Court further clarified that any grievance against the Adjudicating Authority's decision on this aspect may be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism under Section 26 of the PMLA.With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of, and the interim order stood vacated. The judgment reinforces that while writ courts may not ordinarily interfere at the show cause stage under the PMLA, they can step in to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice, particularly the right to access all materials relied upon by the authorities.Case No: W.P.A. No. 5043 of 2026Case: Dipak De Vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read order

Service Of Showcause Notice Via Email Valid Under PMLA Regulations: Calcutta High Court

Srinjoy Das

Tags