Crystallized demand required before revenue recovery measures can continue against property, accounts, or deposited funds.

Restrictive recovery measures against a director's immovable property, bank accounts, and deposited sums cannot be continued where no crystallized monetary demand has arisen after adjudication. The Bombay HC noted that although the show-cause notice was adjudicated by rejecting and redetermining export valuation and related drawback/MEIS claims, and confiscation was ordered, no tax or duty demand had been raised against the petitioner. On that record, the prohibitory communication and bank account attachment were unsustainable, and the department's reliance on an ongoing investigation was insufficient. The deposited amount could not be appropriated without a legal demand. The measures were set aside and refund was directed against a matching bank guarantee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prohibitory communication restraining transfer of the director's immovable property, the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts, and the retention of the deposited amount could be sustained in the absence of any crystallized monetary demand after adjudication.

Analysis: The adjudication of the show-cause notice resulted in rejection and re-determination of export valuation and related drawback/MEIS claims, together with confiscation of the goods, but no monetary demand was raised against the petitioner. In that situation, the continuance of restrictive measures against the immovable property and bank accounts was held to be unjustified because revenue-protective action cannot continue without valid reasons and at least some prima facie material showing a likelihood of recovery. The department's reliance on pending investigation into earlier exports was insufficient on the record then available. As to the deposited sum, the amount could not be appropriated unless a legal demand had crystallized, which had not happened.

Conclusion: The prohibitory communication and bank account attachment were set aside, and the respondents were directed to refund the deposited amount upon furnishing of a matching bank guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi: Restrictive recovery measures and retention of deposited amounts cannot be continued or appropriated by revenue authorities unless a crystallized demand or sufficient prima facie material justifying recovery is shown.

---