2006 (3) TMI 140 - SC - Income Tax

Search And Seizure - whether the High Court could have directed payment of interest on certain jewellery and ornaments belonging to the respondents which had been seized by the appellants on January 12, 2001 - Held that - Without going into the question as to the payability of interest on the value of goods found by the court to have been illegally seized, we hold that the appellants are liable to compensate the respondents at least by way of costs. The loss obviously suffered by the respondents during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court was further aggravated by the delay in complying with the High Court s decision. In the circumstances, we direct the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 to the respondents on account of costs which the respondents will accept in full and final settlement of the claim towards the quantum of interest under the impugned order. Such payment is to be made within a period of four weeks - Decided conditionally in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Whether High Court could direct payment of interest on seized jewellery and ornaments. Whether appellants are liable to compensate respondents.

In this case, the High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the seizure of jewellery and ornaments by the appellants, deeming the search and seizure as invalid and illegal. The High Court directed the appellants to return the seized items with interest at 8% per annum, amounting to Rs. 84.68 lakhs. The appellants argued that there was no prayer for interest in the writ petition. The respondents contended that the High Court had the authority to award penal interest for the unauthorized actions of the appellants. The appellants failed to comply with the High Court's order promptly, leading to further losses for the respondents. The Supreme Court held that while the question of interest on the seized goods was not addressed, the appellants were liable to compensate the respondents for the delay and losses incurred. The appellants were directed to pay Rs. 75,000 to the respondents as costs within four weeks, which would serve as full settlement for the interest claim. Failure to make this payment would result in the dismissal of the appeal with costs.

Therefore, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, emphasizing the appellants' obligation to compensate the respondents for the losses suffered during the legal proceedings and the delay in complying with the High Court's decision. The judgment clarified that the payment of Rs. 75,000 as costs would serve as final settlement for the interest claim, highlighting the importance of timely compliance with court orders to avoid further legal consequences.