https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348190 Interest was payable on refunded amounts once the earlier order was finally upheld and the stay ceased to operate, because the respondents retained money that had become due to the petitioner. The Court applied the principle that a party cannot benefit from unjust enrichment by keeping another's money after liability to refund has crystallised. It distinguished cases denying interest where there was no statutory basis or where the claim was barred by res judicata, and held that the petitioner was entitled to interest on the refunded sums for the intervening period until actual payment. en-us Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 06:01:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348190 Interest was payable on refunded amounts once the earlier order was finally upheld and the stay ceased to operate, because the respondents retained money that had become due to the petitioner. The Court applied the principle that a party cannot benefit from unjust enrichment by keeping another's money after liability to refund has crystallised. It distinguished cases denying interest where there was no statutory basis or where the claim was barred by res judicata, and held that the petitioner was entitled to interest on the refunded sums for the intervening period until actual payment. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348190