The court clarified the standards for imposing costs on the Revenue, linking it to legal enforcement actions taken beyond permissible periods under applicable laws.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

1. These intra-Court appeals are directed against the common order dated 4th March, 2020 passed in a batch of writ petitions, the lead matter of which is WPA 18429 (W) of 2019. The appellant revenue had succeeded before the learned single Bench on the legal issue and the assessees are on appeal against the said order in MAT 515 of 2020. The present appeals have been filed by the revenue only against that portion of the order directing the Department to pay costs of Rs.5,00,000/- to each of the three writ petitioners.

2. We have gone through the order passed by the learned single Bench, more particularly paragraph 11 of the said order, wherein the appellant/Revenue has been reprimanded and cost has been imposed. The learned writ Court was of the opinion that the action of the authorities is illegal by keeping the provisional attachment in state of continuance for a period from 5th June, 2019 when the first order of provisional attachment ceased to operate, till October, 2019 when fresh order of provisional attachment was passed. Interpreting Section 83 (2) of the Act, it was pointed out that the provisional attachment shall cease upon expiry of one year and, therefore, the learned writ Court concluded that it is incumbent upon the authorities to release the provisional attachment by informing the bank or by issuing a fresh order of provisional attachment if the law so allows. On the legal issue as to whether subsequent provisional attachment order can be issued, the learned writ Court has held that Section 83 empowers the competent authority to issue an order for provisional attachment of property including the bank account, if its of the opinion that such step is necessary for protecting the interest of the Revenue. Further, the learned Single Bench pointed out that Section 83 (2) permits continuation of provisional attachment order for a period of one year from the date of the order after which it shall cease to remain in effect. However, there is nothing in the section, which indicates that upon completion of the prescribed period, a fresh order cannot be issued. Therefore, the Court held that after expiry of the time period, the appropriate authority may be of the opinion that such attachment is further required to protect the interest of the Revenue and, therefore, issue a fresh order upon compliance of all formalities under Section 83 (1) of the Act. Accordingly, this issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

3. This finding has been challenged by the assessees by filing individual appeals which are to be heard and decided separately. However, the only issue is whether the learned writ Court could have come to the conclusion that costs of Rs.5,00,000/- is payable to each of the assessees. In our view, when interpretation was required to be considered and one of the issues was decided in favour of the Revenue and against the asseessees, we are of the view that imposition of costs and that too at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- for each of the assessee is not called for.

4.Mr. Chakrabarti, learned counsel for the respondents/assessees submitted that the learned writ Court noted the conduct of the Revenue and then came to the conclusion that there was high-handedness on the part of the Department, at least for the period of four months, for which they kept the attachment order alive in spite of the order of attachment having ceased to have any legal effect.

5.In our considered view, imposition of costs on the department is purely a discretion of the Court and technically we are not required to hear the party concerned as to whether at all costs has to be imposed on the Departme