Differential compensation with interest may follow when confiscation is set aside after seized goods are sold and refund is incomplete.

When confiscation of seized goods is later set aside after the goods have already been sold, the affected party may claim the shortfall between the goods' stated value and the sale proceeds, together with interest, if the refund of proceeds does not fully restore the loss caused by seizure. The Patna HC treated the refund of sale proceeds as insufficient compensation on the facts presented and sustained the entitlement to the differential amount with interest. The appellate challenge was unsuccessful, and the relief granted to the writ petitioner remained in force.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to payment of the difference between the seized goods' stated value and the amount realised on sale, together with interest, after the confiscation order had been set aside.

Analysis: The seized betel-nuts were sold during the pendency of the confiscation proceedings, and the sale proceeds were later refunded after the confiscation order was annulled. The claim for the balance amount with interest had been accepted by the single Judge, and the appeal against that determination disclosed no merit.

Conclusion: The assessee's entitlement to the differential amount with interest was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed, and the relief granted to the writ petitioner remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: When confiscation is set aside after sale of seized goods, the affected party may be entitled to the differential value with interest if the refund of sale proceeds does not fully restore the loss caused by the seizure.

---