Restitution for unlawful retention of stamp duty justified interest on the refunded amount despite no express statutory provision.

Money retained by the State without authority of law and before the taxing event had occurred attracted restitution, so the refunded stamp duty carried interest. The Court held that unjustified detention of money compensates the person deprived of its use, and the absence of an express statutory provision did not defeat the claim. Interest was treated as the normal accretion on capital once restitution applied, and the appellants were therefore entitled to interest on the refunded stamp duty amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to interest on the refunded stamp duty amount of Rs. 28,10,000 arising from loss of the e-stamp paper.

Analysis: The Court held that the refund of stamp duty had already been ordered because the amount had been retained by the State without the taxing event having occurred. On the question of interest, the Court applied the principles of restitution and held that when money is wrongfully or unjustifiably retained, the person deprived of its use is entitled to compensation for such detention. The absence of an express statutory provision for interest did not defeat the claim, since retention of money without authority of law cannot be justified. The Court further noted that interest is the normal accretion on capital and follows where restitution is attracted.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to interest on the refunded amount and the respondents were directed to pay interest quantified by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of awarding interest on the refunded stamp duty, while the State's retention of the amount without authority of law was held to justify consequential monetary compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where money is retained without authority of law and restitution is warranted, interest follows as a matter of course even in the absence of an express statutory provision.

---