Return of interim security after writ success follows, while refund claim must await disposal of pending show cause proceedings.

Security furnished only under an interim writ order must be returned once the writ challenge to the duty demand succeeds, because the basis for retaining the sale deed and fixed deposit receipts then ceases; the later show cause notice does not by itself justify continued withholding, and any fresh liability must be pursued in accordance with law. The refund application, however, need not be finally allowed separately at that stage; where it arises from the same dispute and a show cause notice is pending, it should be considered and disposed of along with those proceedings. The petitioner therefore obtained return of the security documents, while the refund claim remained for decision in the departmental process.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether security furnished pursuant to an interim order should be returned after the writ petition challenging the duty demand had succeeded, notwithstanding a later show cause notice; (ii) whether the refund application should be independently decided or considered along with the subsequently issued show cause notice.

Issue (i): return of security furnished under an interim order after success in the writ petition.

Analysis: The petitioner had furnished security only because of the interlocutory order passed during the writ proceedings. Once the writ petition succeeded, the basis for retaining the sale deed and fixed deposit receipts ceased to exist. The later issuance of a show cause notice did not justify withholding those documents, since any fresh liability, if ultimately determined, would have to be discharged in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to return of the security documents, and the direction for their return was made in his favour.

Issue (ii): treatment of the refund application after issuance of the show cause notice.

Analysis: The refund request arose in the context of the same dispute and after the show cause notice had been issued. The appropriate course was not to grant separate substantive relief on the refund claim at that stage, but to ensure that the application was taken up together with the pending show cause proceedings.

Conclusion: The refund application was directed to be considered and disposed of along with the show cause notice, and no independent final refund relief was granted.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained return of the security furnished under the interim order, while the refund claim was left to be decided in the pending departmental proceedings.

---