Statutory refund interest only: no additional interest on attached deposits beyond the Income-tax Act scheme.

Interest on fixed deposits was denied for the period before the bank received the restraint order because the deposits had already matured and the depositor remained free to deal with them; a hypothetical retrospective renewal could not create an entitlement. Interest was also denied for the later period after attachment because the order only restrained the bank from releasing funds and did not prevent the depositor from seeking renewal. The direction to refund the amount with "interest accrued thereon" was read as referring only to interest payable under the Income-tax Act. The provisional attachment did not extinguish property rights, but it did not justify any additional interest beyond statutory refund interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest for the period before the Department actually received the money from the bank and for the later period after restraint or attachment, and whether the direction to refund the amount with "interest accrued thereon" entitled the petitioner to interest beyond the statutory scheme of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The claim for interest for the period before the restraint order failed because the deposits had matured and the petitioner was free to deal with them, and the suggestion that he might have renewed them retrospectively was treated as hypothetical. The claim for the later period also failed because the attachment operated only to prevent the bank from releasing the money and did not prevent the petitioner from seeking renewal of the deposits. The direction in the earlier judgment to refund the amount with "interest accrued thereon" was held to mean interest payable according to the Income-tax Act, and the statutory provision governing refund interest was applied. The Court accepted that the attachment was provisional in nature and did not extinguish the petitioner's rights in the property, but that did not create any entitlement to interest beyond the statutory refund interest.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to any additional interest beyond that allowed under the Income-tax Act, and the claim for further payment failed.

---