Judgment 1. The Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to return the cheques bearing Nos.000127 and 000129 dated 19.12.2014, drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Virudhunagar Branch in favour of the Assistant Commissioner (CT)-II, Virudhunagar, which was collected illegally and without authority of law, at the time of inspection by the 1st respondent from the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, the authorities, at the time of inspection, has forced or coerced or threatened in such a way that unless the amount is paid, he will be in peril. Apprehending danger at the hands of the authorities concerned, he was made to give two cheques and it was not a voluntary payment. In fact, without any assessment, the officers have no authority to collect the money. Therefore, the authorities have no legal rights even if it is given voluntarily. In view of the matter, he has given stop payment to the Bank and the cheques were dishonoured, but that should not give them to raise any follow up action. In this connection he has also made a representation to the Commissioner, but there is no reply from the Commissioner so far. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his contention, has relied on a Judgment of this Court in Hotel Blue Nile vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, 1992 (87) STC 543, for the proposition that without assessment order or without giving final hearing opportunity, there cannot be collection of tax, at the time of inspection. 3. The respondent has filed a counter and according to them, when the authority told him the value of assessment, under Section 72 of TNVAT Act, 2006, apprehending the penalty payment, he has voluntarily given the Cheques. Later on, he has instructed the Bank not to honour the cheques. In fact, the cheque was given on 18.01.2015 and given stop payment on 23.01.2015, he makes the representation only on 31.01.2015 and he has not come to the authorities immediately and therefore, it clearly shows that it is voluntarily payment. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. In fact, the cheque was given on 18.01.2015 and given stop payment on 23.01.2015, he makes the representation only on 31.01.2015 and he has not come to the authorities immediately and therefore, it clearly shows that it is voluntarily payment. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. The fact remains, according to the petitioner, even if there is a violation, before an assessment order, there cannot be a collection of tax amount at the time of inspection, which is fortified by this Court in the judgment reported in 1992 (87) STC 543 (cited supra) followed by this Court in an unreported judgment in M/s. Arun Engineering Industries vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (Enf), for the proposition that without assessment order or without giving an opportunity of personal hearing, there cannot be collection of tax, at the time of inspection. 6. In view of the settled principles of law, the petitioner's legal right has to be safeguarded, but, at the same time, liberty should be given to the Department to take action in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to return the cheques in question to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. At this juncture, it is now represented by the petitioner that the bank account of the petitioner has been frozen and it is only a sequence to the earlier inspection. Since it is a settled law that without any assessment order or without any demand, there cannot be a forcible collection of tax, especially, when the petitioner challenged even the issuance of cheques. Therefore, this Court also directs the authorities concerned to de-freeze the account of the petitioner immediately, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.35,000/-, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner failure to deposit the amount, it is for the authorities to take appropriate action in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.