HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8982 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. The instructions produced by learned Standing Counsel today in the Court are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pratul Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel. 3. The brief facts as emerge are that an order was passed against the petitioners assessing the deficiency of stamp duty vide order dated 19.11.2024. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners had preferred an appeal and had deposited an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-, which is required to be deposited in terms of the prescriptions contained in the statutory provision for entertainment of the appeal. 4. It is argued that despite the fact that the appeal was entertained after the requisite deposit was made, steps were taken for recovery of the amount assessed in the order dated 19.11.2024 and after attaching the account of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.3,65,112/- was withdrawn from the bank account of the petitioner. 5. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of recovery, despite the pendency of the appeal, was an improper exercise of powers. He argues that even the appeal has been finally disposed of and has been allowed and the matter is remanded, despite the same, the amounts are being retained by respondent without any authority of law. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Prashant Kumar Srivastava Asif Khaliq And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Branch Manager Bank Of Baroda Branch Motinagar Distt. Unnao And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. In the light of the said arguments, the instructions were called. The instructions on record reveal that the respondent was of the view that for preferring an appeal, it was required to deposit 1/3 of the amount assessed, which according to the respondent, was to Rs.1,72,544/-. However, the petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- . 7. It is stated that as the deposit was not adequate, the steps for recovery were taken and the accounts were attached and amounts were debited from the accounts of the petitioners and credited to the Treasury's account. It is, however, admitted in the instructions that the appeal has already been allowed and the proceedings are pending after remand. 8. Considering the fact that admittedly, the appeal in question has been allowed, the retention of any amount by the respondents is without any authority of law. 9. As the instructions states that the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was deposited before the authority, where the appeal was filed the balance is lying with respondent No.6, the writ petition is allowed with direction to both the authorities to refund the amount to the petitioners forthwith on their moving appropriate application before the authorities concerned. 10. It is made clear that in case the amounts are not returned to the petitioners, the petitioners would be liable to get interest @ 8% per annum. The amount shall be refunded within the time as directed above. 11. The respondents would however be at liberty to conclude the proceedings after remand, in accordance with law. September 18, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 8982 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench