TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- and to return the records seized during the search operation. (B) A writ in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from taking any coercive action during the pendency of the present writ petition. (C) A writ in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents to produce the records and to certify the same so as to render conscionable justice to the petitioner. (D) Rule NISI in terms of prayer (A) to (C) above. (E) An ad interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner during the pendency of the rule. (F) Issue such other writ/order/direction and further orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also the documents and records seized. 7. The petition was contested by the respondent by filing affidavits saying that there has been no filing of returns as required under the law and also payment of service tax. It is also alleged that upon examining all these documents collected, and examining the statements recorded by the raiding officers, it was prima facie found that there had been a tax liability. It is further alleged that necessary steps were taken for issuing show cause notice. 8. The petitioner contends that till now the petitioner has not received any show cause notice in connection with the search and seizure. The learned Trial Judge, after observing all the facts as above and having noted the relevant authorities on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be realised by the department or not? However, it is contended that the payment was not made voluntarily, rather it was under threat and coercion. We find two letters placed by Mr. Bhardwaj, written by the petitioner to the department contemporaneously, and on reading both of them, one of April 18, 2006 and another of August 4, 2006, it appears that the payment was not made voluntarily but of course with the intention to meet the tax liability, if found to be due. Sometime, the payment is made to mitigate adverse and harsh situation which befall consequent upon raid, search and seizure. 12. Therefore, the whole point is that whether the department can retain this amount under the provisions of law or not? Mr. Bhardwaj says that under Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvations, we hold that the revenue department has no right to withhold the said amount and it is bound to return the same. 14. Accordingly, we direct the revenue department to return the principal amount of Rs. 15 lakhs to the appellant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the signed copy of this order and on receipt of Rs. 15 lakhs, the appellant shall keep the same in a short term fixed deposit account with any nationalised bank and shall not encash the same for a period of three months from the date of receipt of the amount. In the meantime, it will be open for the revenue department to take steps in accordance with law as may be advised and in the event any lawful tax liability is ascertained upon giving hearing t....