Existence of a predicate offence for initiation of proceedings under the PML Act is not a condition precedent to initiate proceedings: Madras High Court [Read Order]

Logo
HEADLINES
Existence of a predicate offence for initiation of proceedings under the PML Act is not a condition precedent to initiate proceedings: Madras High Court [Read Order]
Madras High Court rejects plea seeking direction against authority to pay 15% interest towards Seized Travellers Cheques [Read Order]
GST: Validity of Unloading of Goods after expiry of E-Way Bill may be extended for 8 hours which reached destination before expiry of E-way Bill, says Karnataka HC [Read Order]
Supreme Court says Ola and Uber not acting as a cartel and didn’t indulge in anti-competitive practices, upholds CCI order [Read Judgment]
CA Exams 2020: ICAI Reopens Empanelment of Chartered Accountants to act as Observers for Cycle-II January/February, 2021 Examinations
Bonafide Export of Foreign Currency without Permission of RBI: CESTAT releases confiscated Currency imposing Fine [Read Order]
One year period of Limitation prescribed under Customs Act applicable for SAD Refund: CESTAT [Read Order]
CBIC enables GST Annual Return for FY 2019-20 is available for all eligible Taxpayers post Computation of Table 8A of GSTR-9
CESTAT gives clean chit to Former Skipper, Sourav Ganguly in an old Service Tax dispute [Read Order]
CBIC specifies Secretary, Citizen Resources Information Department of Haryana with regards to Disclosure of Information respecting Assessees [Read Notification]

HEADLINES | NEWSLETTER | OTHER TAXATIONS | TOP STORIES
Madras High Court rejects plea seeking direction against authority to pay 15% interest towards Seized Travellers Cheques [Read Order]

December 17, 2020 6:45 am| By : Taxscan Team
Madras High Court – plea – interest – Seized Travellers Cheques – Taxscan

The Madras High Court rejected the plea seeking direction against authority to pay 15% interest towards seized travelers cheques on the ground of undue delay or laches in claiming the same.

A sum of Rs.32,371 was paid to the Petitioner as the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800, which was seized from the Petitioner’s house.

The petitioner, Sulaihar present writ petition is filed for a direction to the Respondents to pay interest on Rs.32,371 at 15% per annum till the date of payment of the rupee value thereof or, in the alternative, to pay a sum of Rs.94,259, which is the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800 after setting-off the sum of Rs.32,371 which was paid.

The counsel for the petition, Mr.Abdul Nazeer submitted that this Court by order directed the Enforcement Directorate to refund the value of UK Pounds 1800. The said order was not carried in appeal by the Enforcement Directorate and, therefore, attained finality.

Section 42(3) of the FERA provided for the payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum in all cases other than cases of confiscation either under Section 63 of FERA or under the Customs Act, 1962.

According to Mr. Abdul Nazeer, the confiscation was set aside by this Court and, therefore, the statutory interest liability under Section 42(3) of FERA is triggered ipso facto. Even otherwise, he submits that a party that makes payment belatedly is liable to pay interest thereon.

On the contrary, Mr.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on the grounds that the proceedings relating to the confiscation attained finality with the order dated November 26, 1999. Accordingly, a separate writ petition for payment of interest is not maintainable.

The single-judge bench of Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy clarified that the writ petition was filed more than 9 years after receiving the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800.

Therefore, the court held that the writ petition is liable to be rejected solely on the ground of laches.

Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME