Writ remedy and seized assets interest claim rejected where the demand was disputed and silver bars were not treated as money.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held unsuitable for a disputed claim for interest on seized assets because the claim was essentially for recovery of money, depended on contested facts, and could have been pursued by civil suit. On the statutory issue, interest under Section 132B(4) was held payable only on money seized or requisitioned under the Act, not on bullion or jewellery. Silver bars were treated as bullion, not money, so the interest claim failed. The challenge to refusal of interest was therefore rejected on both maintainability and merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was an appropriate remedy for a disputed claim for interest on seized assets; (ii) Whether interest under Section 132B(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was payable on silver bars seized under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was an appropriate remedy for a disputed claim for interest on seized assets.

Analysis: The claim was essentially one for recovery of money, resting on disputed factual assertions and a substantial monetary demand. The Court held that such a claim was not suited to writ jurisdiction, particularly where the cause of action had arisen long earlier and the petitioners had delayed raising the demand for nearly 11 years. The availability of a civil suit made writ intervention inappropriate.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable as a proper remedy for the monetary claim, and the objection was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest under Section 132B(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was payable on silver bars seized under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Section 132B(4) provides for simple interest only on the amount of money seized under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 132A, subject to the statutory conditions. The Court held that silver bars are bullion and cannot be treated as money. Since the provision was confined to money seized, it did not extend to bullion or jewellery. The cited authorities relied upon by the petitioners were held to be distinguishable or inapplicable.

Conclusion: No interest was payable under Section 132B(4) on the seized silver bars, and the issue was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed both on maintainability and on the substantive statutory claim for interest, and the challenge to the respondents' refusal to pay interest did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not ordinarily entertain a disputed money claim for interest when an alternate civil remedy exists, and Section 132B(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies only to money seized or requisitioned, not to bullion or other assets such as silver bars.

---