ORDER Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, C.J. 1. Learned counsel for the Revenue does not want to file any counter as he feels that this matter can be disposed of finally going by the statements and averments in the writ petition. We have heard both the learned counsel. The grievance of the writ petitioner is in relation to the notice issued by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2-bank purporting to recover an amount of Rs. 28,56,464/- allegedly payable by respondent No. 2 to the writ petitioner as the same is being held by second respondent. The second respondent has not raised any objection to the said notice. 2. The writ petitioner is maintaining a bank account with respondent No. 2 and the amount is sought to be recovered from this account. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that this notice is illegal as no money is due and payable by the bank to the writ petitioner unless the writ petitioner asks the bank to pay. That apart, he says there was no adjudication of the exact amount due and payable by his client though admittedly from time to time his client has paid service tax dues. He says further that his client is not disputing the liability to pay legitimate service tax. However, his client wants to know what is the legitimate quantum. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue, while countering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, says that by virtue of power under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, the notice has been issued and such action is perfectly just and correct. However, he says that hearing can be given to the writ petitioner for quantification of exact amount since the figure mentioned in the impugned notice is disputed. 4. We have taken note of the submissions and counter submissions. First issue, which falls for decision of this Court is whether Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as' the Act), empowers the revenue authority to issue impugned notice intending to recover the amount. In this context, we set out Section 87 of the Act: 87. 4. We have taken note of the submissions and counter submissions. First issue, which falls for decision of this Court is whether Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as' the Act), empowers the revenue authority to issue impugned notice intending to recover the amount. In this context, we set out Section 87 of the Act: 87. Recovery of any amount due to Central Government.- Where any amount payable by a person to the credit of the Central Government under any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made thereunder is not paid, the Central Excise Officer shall proceed to recover the amount by one or more of the modes mentioned below:- (a) the Central Excise Officer may deduct or may require any other Central Excise Officer or any officer of customs to deduct the amount so payable from any money owing to such person which may be under the control of the said Central Excise Officer or any officer of customs; (b) (i) the Central Excise Officer may, by notice in writing, require any other person from whom money is due or may become due to such person, or who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of such person, to pay to the credit of the Central Government either forthwith upon the money becoming due or being held or at or within the time specified in the notice, not being before the money becomes due or is held, so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the amount due from such person or the whole of the money when it is equal to or less than that amount; (ii) every person to whom a notice is issued under this section shall be bound to comply with such notice, and, in particular, where any such notice is issued to a post office, banking company or an insurer, it shall not be necessary to produce any pass book, deposit, receipt, policy or any other document for the purpose of any entry, endorsement or the like being made before payment is made, notwithstanding any rule, practice or requirement to the contrary; (iii) in a case where the person to whom a notice under this section is sent, fails to make the payment in pursuance thereof to the Central Government, he shall be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of the amount specified in the notice and all the consequences of this Chapter shall follow; (c) the Central Excise Officer may, on an authorization by the Commissioner of Central Excise, in accordance with the rules made in this behalf, distrain any movable or immovable property belonging to or under the control of such person, and detain the same until the amount payable is paid; and in case, any part of the said amount payable or of the cost of the distress or keeping of the property, remains unpaid for a period of thirty days next after any such distress may cause the said property to be sold and with the proceeds of such sale, may satisfy the amount payable and the costs including cost of sale remaining unpaid and shall render the surplus amount, if any, to such person; (d) the Central Excise Officer may prepare a certificate signed by him specifying the amount due from such person and send it to the Collector of the district in which such person owns any property or resides or carries on the business and the said Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover from such person the amount specified thereunder as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (emphasis supplied by us) 5. On a close reading of the aforesaid Section, it appears it is one of the modes of recovery of the dues payable by debtor. The power given appears to be sweeping and wide in nature. Above provision obliges the third party (here Bank) to pay not only when it becomes due and payable to the debtor, even also the same is being held by the third party, however with precondition that the money must be legally due and actually held. In this case when respondent Bank has not come forward to object to the action of Revenue, we do not see any reason fundamentally to stall the operation of the notice. However, as the Revenue has agreed to hear the petitioner as to quantum of the legitimate amount of tax, we permit the petitioner to make a representation to the Revenue Officer who has issued the notice, within fortnight from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the notice in question shall be operative. If such representation is made it shall be disposed of with a speaking order, within three weeks from the date of making representation. Till such decision is taken, operation of notice shall remain stayed, however the writ petitioner, and/or his representatives/agents/assigns are restrained from withdrawing any amount without leaving the balance of Rs. 28,56,464/-. The aforesaid restraint order will stand vacated if the writ petitioner furnishes bank guarantee in the same bank securing the aforesaid amount. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of.