TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the petitioner could resist recovery of the security amount demanded pursuant to the final confiscation order; (ii) whether interest could be levied on the security amount from 29.7.2003.
Issue (i): whether the petitioner could resist recovery of the security amount demanded pursuant to the final confiscation order.
Analysis: The confiscation order had attained finality and was not under challenge. The vehicle had been released earlier only on the petitioner furnishing security equal to its assessed value. Once the petitioner failed to surrender the vehicle in accordance with the confiscation direction, the department was entitled to proceed for recovery of the security amount through revenue recovery measures.
Conclusion: The challenge to the demand and recovery proceedings was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether interest could be levied on the security amount from 29.7.2003.
Analysis: Liability to pay the security amount arose on the petitioner's default in returning the vehicle after the confiscation order. However, interest could not be demanded from the earlier date mentioned in the notices when the operative confiscation order was passed much later. The demand for interest was therefore confined to the period commencing from the date of the confiscation order.
Conclusion: Interest was held leviable only from the date of the confiscation order dated 5.11.2011, and not from 29.7.2003.
Final Conclusion: The recovery action was upheld, but the interest component was restricted to run only from the date of the final confiscation order.
Ratio Decidendi: Where security is furnished for provisional release of a confiscated vehicle and the owner fails to comply with the final confiscation order, the authority may recover the security amount with interest, but interest cannot be levied from a date earlier than the operative confiscation order giving rise to the liability.
TaxTMI 
