The Court rejected the State’s objection that an earlier writ petition challenging Section 16(4) barred the present claim, holding that Section 16(5) constitutes a fresh cause of action.

The Tribunal observed that revenue has compared the figures reflected in the ST-3 returns and figures reflected in Form 26AS statement and raised the demand without further examining the reasons for the difference in the two statements.

The appeal was against a single-bench order which noted that the bank had no authority to retain original title deeds of the Respondent herein post-closure of the loan account.