Special statutory recovery and contingent refund depend on fresh determination of actual tax liability after remand.

Recovery under a special statutory recovery mechanism was treated as sustainable where the dealer had not responded to assessment notices, and the later challenge to the assessment did not by itself invalidate the bank recovery. The Court also held that immediate refund was not due at that stage because actual tax liability, including tax, penalty and interest, still had to be redetermined after remand. Any refund would arise only if fresh adjudication showed that the amount already recovered exceeded the lawful dues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether recovery of the disputed amount from the petitioner's bank account under the special recovery provision was invalid for want of prior notice or authority. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to immediate refund of the amount recovered with interest.

Issue (i): Whether recovery of the disputed amount from the petitioner's bank account under the special recovery provision was invalid for want of prior notice or authority.

Analysis: The assessment authority had proceeded under the provision dealing with dealers evading registration, and the recovery from the bank was made under the special mode of recovery provision after the petitioner failed to respond to notices. The Court also noted that the recovery had taken place before the appellate authority remanded the matter for a fresh decision. On these facts, the invocation of the recovery machinery could not be held illegal merely because the petitioner later questioned the assessment.

Conclusion: The recovery action under the special mode of recovery provision was not held to be bad.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to immediate refund of the amount recovered with interest.

Analysis: The Court held that the question of refund would arise only after the taxing authority passed a fresh order pursuant to remand and determined the actual tax liability, including tax, penalty, and interest. If the amount already recovered exceeded the amount lawfully due, refund would then follow in accordance with law.

Conclusion: Immediate refund was not directed, but refund was left open to the extent any excess amount was found upon fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for a fresh order by the taxing authority within a fixed time, and the petitioner's entitlement to refund was made contingent on the result of that fresh determination.

Ratio Decidendi: Recovery under the special statutory recovery mechanism is sustainable where invoked after default in responding to assessment proceedings, and refund can be ordered only after the actual liability is freshly determined and any excess recovery is established.

---