9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for interest on the amount illegally retained by Customs Authorities. Analysis: The petitioner imported goods and faced proceedings resulting in a deposit of duty, fine, and penalty. Despite favorable decisions from higher authorities, the refund was delayed. The petitioner sought interest on the amount retained by Customs Authorities. The petitioner argued that interest should be paid as compensation for the period they were deprived of their money. Legal precedents were cited to support the claim for interest, emphasizing that interest is a return for the use of money by others. The petitioner's counsel contended that the Customs Authorities acted without authority in retaining the money. The respondent's counsel argued that Customs Authorities operate quasi-judicially and should not be liable for interest unless a refund is ordered and not complied with. It was stated that interest should not be awarded automatically from the date of deposit, considering the nature of Customs Authorities' functions. The respondent cited Supreme Court decisions and contended that interest should only be awarded under specific conditions. The court considered the arguments and legal precedents cited by both parties. It noted that there is no fixed rule for awarding interest and each case's circumstances should be considered. In this case, the petitioner had to wait for almost two years to receive the refund despite favorable decisions. The court found that the delay in repayment warranted the award of interest. Therefore, the court directed the Customs Authorities to pay interest on the refunded amount at a rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the revision application until the actual repayment. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting the claim for interest. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, ordering the Customs Authorities to pay interest on the refunded amount. The court emphasized that interest should be awarded based on the circumstances of each case, especially when there is a significant delay in repayment despite favorable orders.
|
