02/2018 dated 27.03.2018 and later on the same was confirmed vide impugned order dated 13.09.2018. He contended that the said bank accounts are business accounts of his proprietorship concerns and no trail of proceeds was received in the said two accounts, even then, without appreciating the true facts, the respondent ED attached the same and the same is also confirmed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority by ignoring the reply and defence of the appellant. He argued that as per allegation M/s JaldharaCotspin Pvt Ltd. Ludhiana, received sum of Rs. 44,00,056/-, in its bank account from M/s Shreyas International and M/s Shreya International paid the said amount out of the proceeds of crime of Rs. 70,50,000/- received from the accused Ramesh Mehan, Prop. of proprietorship concern M/s Yourke International, who committed the fraud of VAT refund to the tune of Rs. 74,36,067/-. He pointed out that as per allegation, present appellant Jagmohan Garg received sum of Rs. 1,79,982/- and Rs. 1,05,000/- (totalling to 2,84,982/-) on 04.05.2013 in his bank account from M/s JaldharaCotspin Pvt Ltd. He stressed that the accounts of his Proprietorship concerns, namely, M/s Garg Wollen Mills and M/s B L Yarn cannot be attached, just because he received sum of Rs. 2,84,982/- in his individual account. The amount lying in the bank accounts of said two firms is wrongly confirmed for attachment without any legal basis. The said proprietor ship concerns, namely, M/s Garg Wollen Mills and M/s B L Yarn are not arrayed as necessary parties in the adjudicating proceedings, and hence, the said confirmation order of the
