https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424058 Wrongful retention of seized cash beyond the statutory period under section 132B(4) can justify compensatory interest on restitutionary principles even where the statute specifies only the basic interest period. The Bombay High Court's approach, as noted here, is that completion of assessment does not bar relief if the revenue continues to hold money after liabilities are determined as nil and the assessee is not at fault. Strict construction of fiscal provisions does not exclude a separate claim for compensation for delayed release. The result is that interest may be awarded for the post-period delay to restore the assessee for the deprivation of funds. en-us Fri, 22 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424058 Wrongful retention of seized cash beyond the statutory period under section 132B(4) can justify compensatory interest on restitutionary principles even where the statute specifies only the basic interest period. The Bombay High Court's approach, as noted here, is that completion of assessment does not bar relief if the revenue continues to hold money after liabilities are determined as nil and the assessee is not at fault. Strict construction of fiscal provisions does not exclude a separate claim for compensation for delayed release. The result is that interest may be awarded for the post-period delay to restore the assessee for the deprivation of funds. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424058