https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391983 A writ petition under Article 226 may still secure refund of seized cash despite delay or laches where the claim enforces an admitted statutory refund obligation and no third-party rights are affected. The Court noted that the writ remedy is not subject to a fixed limitation period, and equitable delay objections depend on the facts, including prejudice and change of position. Where the authorities had acknowledged liability to return the seized amount after proceedings under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, withholding the money was not justified. Interest was also payable because the amount had remained with the authorities without lawful retention. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Feb 2020 08:18:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391983 A writ petition under Article 226 may still secure refund of seized cash despite delay or laches where the claim enforces an admitted statutory refund obligation and no third-party rights are affected. The Court noted that the writ remedy is not subject to a fixed limitation period, and equitable delay objections depend on the facts, including prejudice and change of position. Where the authorities had acknowledged liability to return the seized amount after proceedings under Section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, withholding the money was not justified. Interest was also payable because the amount had remained with the authorities without lawful retention. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391983