Refund of investigation deposits and reasonable release conditions for seized goods where no prima facie confiscation case is shown

Amounts deposited during search and investigation cannot be retained or appropriated without an assessment and demand; a claim that the payment was voluntary is not enough to justify withholding it, so the deposit had to be refunded. Seized goods cannot be kept under prolonged detention or released only on harsh security conditions unless the department shows a clear prima facie case for confiscation; on the material available, that threshold was not met, so provisional release on an undertaking in terms similar to Form B-11 was directed without bank guarantee or cash security. The legality of the search and seizure itself was left undecided.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the amount deposited during search and investigation was liable to be refunded in the absence of assessment and demand; (ii) whether the conditions imposed for provisional release of seized goods, including bank guarantee or cash security, were valid.

Issue (i): whether the amount deposited during search and investigation was liable to be refunded in the absence of assessment and demand

Analysis: The amount had been deposited before assessment. The Court held that, whatever the nature of the deposit, it could not be appropriated or retained without an assessment and demand. Mere assertion that the payment was voluntary was insufficient to justify retention.

Conclusion: The amount was directed to be returned to the petitioners.

Issue (ii): whether the conditions imposed for provisional release of seized goods, including bank guarantee or cash security, were valid

Analysis: Pending investigation, seizure cannot be prolonged indefinitely and release cannot be made subject to harsh or unreasonable conditions. A security condition for the full value of the goods is justified only where a clear prima facie case for confiscation is made out. On the material then available, the allegations raised by the department did not establish such a prima facie case, and the continued detention of goods or insistence on onerous security was held to be arbitrary.

Conclusion: The goods were directed to be released on an undertaking in terms similar to Form B-11, without bank guarantee or cash security.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent that the deposited amount had to be refunded and the seized goods had to be provisionally released on reasonable terms, while the validity of the search and seizure itself was left undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: Amounts deposited during investigation cannot be retained without assessment and demand, and seized goods cannot be subjected to onerous release conditions unless a clear prima facie case for confiscation is established.

---