Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (9) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ided no justification for not paying the amount of interest along with the amount seized. Even according to the respondent, a sum of ₹1,19,09,803/- was payable to the petitioner on 25.10.2012. However, this amount was paid by the respondent on 05.04.2013, and there is no explanation, whatsoever for retaining the amount. The petitioner has been deprived of the use of the said funds and, thus, is entitled to be compensated for the same. There are numerous decisions, where the Courts have awarded interest as compensation for denial of the right to utilise the money due. In Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors v. Union of India (2009 (5) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT) the Supreme Court observed that “As has been frequently explained by this Court and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... before the Adjudicating Authority. 3. Pursuant to the complaint, the Adjudicating Authority issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 12.05.2008 to the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the adjudication proceedings which culminated in the order dated 09.02.2009. By the aforesaid order dated 09.02.2009, the Adjudicating Authority directed confiscation of the seized amount and also imposed penalties on the appellant and its partners. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner challenged the Adjudication order dated 09.02.2009 by way of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi (Appeal No. 41 of 2009). 5. By an order dated 12.06.2009, the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange allowed the petitioner& .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt (from 25.10.2012 to 05.04.2013). 11. Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent had paid the entire principal and also the interest at the rate of 6% per annum albeit belatedly and, therefore, no further amount was payable to the petitioner. He submitted that in terms of Rule 8 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Encashment of Draft, Cheque, Instrument and Payment of interest) Rules, 2000 (hereafter 'the Rules'), only interest at the rate of 6% was payable and additional interest accrued on the amount seized/confiscated by the respondent would be at the benefit of the respondent. 12. Mr. D.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner countered the aforesaid subm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und after completion of the investigation that the Indian currency seized under section 37 of the Act is not involved in the contravention and is to be returned, the same shall be returned to such persons together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of seizure till the date of payment. (ii) Where it has been found during the course of adjudication that the seized Indian currency is not relevant for such adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority may pass such order returning such Indian currency together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to such person. 16. In terms of the present case, the respondent invested the amount seized in a separate fixed deposit. Although, the amount was seized by the respondent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rules, must be considered in the context of the respondent depositing the money in the account of the ED and is intended to ensure that the person from whom the amounts are seized is paid an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of seizure till the date of payment. This provision would obviously not be applicable where the funds were directly invested in a separate fixed deposit bearing a higher rate of interest. In such cases the interest on the funds of the owner would represent accretion on the amount and would have to be paid to the owner, as there is no substantive provision which provides for vesting or confiscating such property. Plainly, in absence of any law permitting appropriation of property, the question of depriv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates