https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22772 Section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits only a prohibitory restraint over seized deposits and does not authorise revenue authorities to compel a bank to encash a fixed deposit and issue a draft in favour of the department. The challenge to the assessment and penalty orders on alleged defective service of notice was left unresolved on the facts, and no conclusive finding was recorded because of the pending appeal. Immediate refund of the seized amount was also declined in writ jurisdiction, although the Court noted that if the assessment or penalty is later set aside, the petitioner may seek refund with interest. en-us Mon, 27 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:22:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22772 Section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits only a prohibitory restraint over seized deposits and does not authorise revenue authorities to compel a bank to encash a fixed deposit and issue a draft in favour of the department. The challenge to the assessment and penalty orders on alleged defective service of notice was left unresolved on the facts, and no conclusive finding was recorded because of the pending appeal. Immediate refund of the seized amount was also declined in writ jurisdiction, although the Court noted that if the assessment or penalty is later set aside, the petitioner may seek refund with interest. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 27 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22772