JYOTI SARAN, J.:–In each of the three writ petitions the petitioners have questioned the notice issued by the Assessing authority in purported exercise of powers vested under Section 47 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') in directing the Bank concerned to remit the amount mentioned in the notice in the Government treasury.

2. To be specific, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.5569 of 2019 prays for quashing one such notice dated 28.2.2019 directing the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Danapur, to remit a sum of Rs. 94,29,798/-, a copy of which is impugned at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3321 of 2019 has similarly questioned the notice bearing Memo No.1610 dated 11.02.2019 directing the Branch Manager, IDBI Bank to remit the amount of Rs. 25,22,345.38 by way of VAT and amount of Rs. 23,750/- towards Central Sales Tax which is impugned at Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 6123 of 2019 prays for quashing of the notice bearing No. 998 dated 12.03.2019 directing the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Gaya to remit an amount of Rs. 48,75,717/- being the cumulative demand towards Central Sales Tax for the financial year 2014-15 and 2013-14 which notice is impugned at Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

3. It is following the notice issued by the Assessing Authority concerned that is the Joint Commissioner, State Taxes, Danapur Circle, the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes Bhagalpur Circle and the Joint Commissioner State Taxes, Gaya Circle respectively, the respective Cash Credit Account of the three petitioners herein has been attached and as a consequence the petitioners who are business houses cannot operate these accounts to discharge their financial obligations.

4. The pleadings on record confirm that in each of the cases the assessment proceedings was carried out for the period in question, orders passed, admitted tax amount deposited and for the disputed tax amount, a statutory appeal as provided under 'the Act' is preferred by the petitioner(s) after depositing the statutory fee of 20% of the disputed amount and which are pending consideration for disposal before the statutory authority. Now even before these appeals are disposed that the respective Assessing authorities, in purported exercise of powers so vested under 'the Act' engineered the special process of recovery and taking a short route provided under the provisions of Section 47 of 'the Act' that they have attached the Cash Credit Account of the petitioners but then the object which is sought to be achieved by the Department i.e of collection of revenue in the closing period of the financial year failed because, no money lies in a Cash Credit Account of any account holder.

5. It is bearing note of such futile exercise and on hearing Mr. D.V. Pathy, Mr. Suraj Samdarshi and Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respective petitioners in this batch of writ petitions and Mr. Vikash Kumar S.C.11 on behalf of the State that this Court framed two issues which prima-facie fell for consideration while recording the order dated 28.3.2019 and which runs as under:—

"(a) Whether where an assessee has taken recourse to statutory remedy of appeal to question assessment/re-assessment orders by depositing statutory amount mandated under the Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and rules framed thereunder, any attempt by the statutory authorities by taking recourse of the provisions of Section 47 of ‘the Act’ is an attempt to overreach the statutory provisions and make the appellate remedy redundant; and/or

(b) Whether even if the statutory authority is within his jurisdiction to take recourse to the action under Section 47 of ‘the Act’, he can attach a Cash Credit Account of the assessee."

6. It is allowing the parties to file their respective affidavits that the matters have been heard and when learned counsel for the petitioners have argued a