https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793339 Retention of seized cash beyond six months was impermissible because the customs authority did not pass a reasoned extension order in writing and communicate it before expiry, so the statutory requirement under section 110(2) was not met and the cash became returnable. The later transfer of the cash to Income Tax authorities after expiry did not cure the unlawful retention, because the petitioners' right to return had already accrued. Costs were also warranted for the authorities' conduct during the writ proceedings, though the deterrent costs were reduced on the basis of the assurance given. en-us Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jun 2026 08:36:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793339 Retention of seized cash beyond six months was impermissible because the customs authority did not pass a reasoned extension order in writing and communicate it before expiry, so the statutory requirement under section 110(2) was not met and the cash became returnable. The later transfer of the cash to Income Tax authorities after expiry did not cure the unlawful retention, because the petitioners' right to return had already accrued. Costs were also warranted for the authorities' conduct during the writ proceedings, though the deterrent costs were reduced on the basis of the assurance given. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793339