https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784501 The dominant issue was whether a writ claim for compensation/return was maintainable where seized property was lost while in State custody. Holding that seizure was an exercise of sovereign power but loss occurred due to negligence after seizure, the HC applied constitutional tort principles, finding the negligent failure to safeguard seized silver/cash infringed the petitioner's Art. 19(1)(g) right to carry on business; compensation/restoration was therefore warranted, and relief was granted. On quantification, the HC refused to adjudicate alleged impurity of returned silver for lack of material, and limited relief to the undisputed shortfall between 105 kg seized and 81.567 kg returned, directing return of 23.44 kg pure silver valued at current rates with adjustment of the excess cash returned. Petition allowed. en-us Wed, 31 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:48:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784501 The dominant issue was whether a writ claim for compensation/return was maintainable where seized property was lost while in State custody. Holding that seizure was an exercise of sovereign power but loss occurred due to negligence after seizure, the HC applied constitutional tort principles, finding the negligent failure to safeguard seized silver/cash infringed the petitioner's Art. 19(1)(g) right to carry on business; compensation/restoration was therefore warranted, and relief was granted. On quantification, the HC refused to adjudicate alleged impurity of returned silver for lack of material, and limited relief to the undisputed shortfall between 105 kg seized and 81.567 kg returned, directing return of 23.44 kg pure silver valued at current rates with adjustment of the excess cash returned. Petition allowed. Case-Laws GST Wed, 31 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784501