ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged two actions of the Department, namely, of attaching the petitioner’s residential bunglow and stock worth Rs.2.51 Crores by order dated 04.07.2017 and the action of forcibly collecting cheques worth Rs.45,98,352/from the petitioner. 2. The brief facts are as under; The petitioner is engaged in dealing in engineering and electronic goods and is registered under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for such purpose. The petitioner’s premises were subjected to search by the respondents on 04.07.2017 when the respondents, prima facie, found large scale tax evasion. 3. Pursuant to such action, the respondents passed the order of attachment attaching the residential property valued at Rs.32 Lakhs approximately and stock valued at Rs.2.51 crores approximately. The Department also collected cheques worth Rs.45,98,352/along with a statement purportedly given by the petitioner voluntarily on the same day indicating that the petitioner was aware about the tax liability and was prepared to deposit the principal amount of tax but, not the penalty. However, the petitioner stated that he had volunteered to deposit such amount to avoid attachment of his stock. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the life of the order of attachment has, by now, expired and therefore, he does not press relief against the said order. His only surviving relief is against the action of the Department of forcibly collecting postdated cheques from him. 5. The materials on record would suggest that when such cheques were deposited, the petitioner had instructed the bankers for stop payment. Resultantly, the cheques were never encashed. 6. The question of forcibly collecting cheques from dealers at the time of search operation has occupied the minds of this Court as well as other Courts on multiple occasions. The Courts have deprecated the practice of coercive recoveries, without any order of assessment or without initiation of assessment proceedings. There may be a given situation where, in order to avoid the unpleasant consequence of stock attachment, the dealer may have volunteered to deposit some amount. We may recall that the revenue authorities have ample powers under the VAT Act to provide for provisional attachment, even pending attachment, in order to protect the Government revenue. However, the Courts have always deprecated the action of coercively collecting cheques of the amounts of tax which have not crystallized. 7. We may recall that the revenue authorities have ample powers under the VAT Act to provide for provisional attachment, even pending attachment, in order to protect the Government revenue. However, the Courts have always deprecated the action of coercively collecting cheques of the amounts of tax which have not crystallized. 7. In the present case, as noted, in his statement, the petitioner had indicated that he was prepared to give the cheques to avoid attachment of the stock. The Department, nevertheless, attached the stock also. Even if voluntarily made, the offer of the petitioner to pay the amount of possible tax was conditional and the condition being that his stock should not be attached. The Department cannot retain the cheques, seek realization thereof while still attaching the petitioner’s stock. 8. Under the circumstances, such action is quashed. The Department shall return the cheques of the petitioner. Nothing said in this order will prevent the respondents from carrying out the assessment in accordance with law. We are informed that because of the pendency of this petition, final orders of assessment were not passed. It would be open for the Department to pass such order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.