ORDER DEEPAK VERMA, J. - By this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the action taken by respondents in making search and seizure of the petitioner's establishment in purported exercise of their powers under section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling all types of namkeens and sweetmeats. Petitioner is a duly registered dealer under M.P. Commercial Tax Act as also under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 3. On February 7, 1996 and on February 8, 1996, search was made by respondent No. 2 of the petitioner's premises. Certain documents were seized and an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was collected from the petitioner, vide cheque dated February 8, 1996 of the State Bank of Indore, Indore, towards penalty. After completion of the search and seizure, notice was issued to the petitioner for further scrutiny. The said proceedings are still in progress. 4. During the pendency of these proceedings petitioner served a legal notice to the respondents, vide annexure P8 on March 26, 1996 challenging the raid, search and seizure challenging the same as arbitrary, illegal collection of tax as also authority of respondent No. 2 to make search and seizure of the petitioner's premises. Reply to the same has been sent vide annexure P9 dated April 3, 1996, by the respondents. Further proceedings and scrutiny following the raid, search and seizure are still in progress. Without waiting for the adjudication of same by the concerned authority, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Shri M. S. Choudhury appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as required under section 45(1) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") a committee has to be constituted for adjudication and investigation of evasion of tax under this Act, and only after getting necessary information that the dealer had evaded tax or is indulging in evasion of tax, any action is to be taken on a report to be prepared by it and has to send the same to the Commissioner to investigate into the matter. His contention is that the respondents have failed to show any material to the petitioner that a valid committee was constituted under this section 45(1) of the Act and there was sufficient material to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had been evading any tax. It has also been submitted that in this view of the matter the whole proceedings are totally vitiated and deserves to be quashed. He has also contended that the petitioner has no effective or efficacious remedy and the only remedy available to it is to approach this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on it under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Perusal of annexure P9 dated April 3, 1996, which is a reply given by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner's legal notice clearly shows that a committee was constituted under section 45 of the Act and only after gathering sufficient material against the petitioner that tax is being evaded, order with regard to search and seizure of the petitioner's business premises was made. It has also been mentioned in the said reply that under section 45 of the Act, Commissioner is competent to delegate his powers and duties under the said Act. Sub-section (5) of section 45 of the Act contemplates the powers of the Commissioner while making search and seizure. Sub-section (6)(a) and (b) confers the powers on the Commissioner to seize all such goods and take all necessary steps for their removal, proper custody and preservation and thereafter to serve him a notice in writing to show cause within a period of 30 days of service of such notice as to why a penalty equal to double the amount of tax payable calculable on the price which such goods would have fetched on their assumed sale, be not imposed. 7. As has been mentioned above after making search and seizure, Commissioner invoking powers under sub-section (6)(a) of section 45 of the Act, has initiated proceedings against the petitioner which are still pending disposal, in accordance with law. Sub-section (1) of this section shows that any order or adjudication made under this section shall be deemed to be an order under section 27 of the Act. This means that order passed under this section would be appealable under section 61 of the Act. 8. Shri Choudhury submitted that without there being any adjudication, the amount of Rs. Sub-section (1) of this section shows that any order or adjudication made under this section shall be deemed to be an order under section 27 of the Act. This means that order passed under this section would be appealable under section 61 of the Act. 8. Shri Choudhury submitted that without there being any adjudication, the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs could not have been recovered from the petitioner. His contention is that the same was recovered by coercion and exercise of undue influence. Statement of the managing director of the petitioner in this regard is material, to be seen, which is exhibit P2 made on February 8, 1996. In the said statement it has been stated by Rameshchandra Gupta, managing director of the petitioner that on his own free will and accord a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs is being given to the respondents towards penalty or tax payable. It has further been mentioned at the end of the said statement that he has read and understood the same and only thereafter he has put his signatures. Shri Choudhury contended that exercise of coercion and undue influence is manifestly proved as the petitioner had immediately written to the department that the cheque was obtained from him by such exercise. The petitioner has also informed the bank to stop payment of the said cheque. Consequently the cheque could not be encashed till date. 9. Contention of the petitioner that there was no properly constituted committee and there was no sufficient material to conduct such a seizure against the petitioner, is wholly fallacious. Respondent No. 2 has categorically given details of the formation of the committee and about the availability of the material with him against the petitioner to show that it was indulging in evasion of tax. The matter is still sub judice with the said authority. The petitioner has also filed its objections challenging the jurisdiction of the respondents. 10. As mentioned above the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under section 61 of the Act against any order passed under section 45 of the Act as section 45(6)(1) mansions that final adjudication would mean passing of an order under section 27 of the Act, i.e., assessment of tax. Any order passed under section 27 would be appealable under section 61 of the Act. Any order passed under section 27 would be appealable under section 61 of the Act. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no alternative or efficacious remedy available to it. 11. In view of the statement made by the managing director of the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is being paid by him on his own free will and accord, it appears to be doubtful that the same was obtained by coercion or undue influence. Since the matter is yet to be adjudicated upon by the concerned authority, therefore, any observation made by this Court should not be taken as expressing opinion on the merits of the respondent's case. The authority shall still be at liberty to examine whether the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was rightly recovered by them. 12. On account of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit or substance in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine without notice to the other side. Petition dismissed.