2005 (5) TMI 681 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of demands for additional security by the Respondents.
2. Adjustment of excess security deposits towards future demands.
3. Violation of constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 301, and 304(b)).
4. Applicability of the Assam General Sales Tax Act (AGST Act) and Central Sales Tax Act (CST Act).
5. Availability of alternative remedies under the AGST Act and Rules.
6. Validity of the Respondents' procedure for refund and adjustment of excess security deposits.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Demands for Additional Security by the Respondents:
The Petitioners, registered coal dealers, argued that the Respondents' demands for additional security for issuing road challans were arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the AGST Act and CST Act. The Respondents justified the demands as regulatory measures to prevent tax evasion, asserting that the security amount is usually fixed at a higher side to cover potential tax liabilities.

2. Adjustment of Excess Security Deposits Towards Future Demands:
The Petitioners contended that the excess security deposits lying with the Respondents should be adjusted against future demands for additional security. They cited instances where similar adjustments were made for other parties. However, the Respondents maintained that the excess security deposits could only be refunded or adjusted against past dues, as per the provisions of the AGST Act and Rules.

3. Violation of Constitutional Provisions:
The Petitioners argued that the Respondents' actions violated Articles 14, 301, and 304(b) of the Constitution of India. They highlighted instances where other parties received adjustments, suggesting discriminatory treatment. The Court, however, found no merit in these claims, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions.

4. Applicability of the AGST Act and CST Act:
The Court examined the relevant provisions of the AGST Act and CST Act, noting that the Acts empower tax authorities to demand security deposits. The Court clarified that the security deposits are meant for adjustment against payable taxes and that the refund and adjustment procedures are well-defined within the Acts and Rules.

5. Availability of Alternative Remedies Under the AGST Act and Rules:
The Respondents argued that the Petitioners had alternative remedies available under the AGST Act and Rules for seeking refunds of excess security deposits. The Court agreed, stating that the Petitioners should follow the prescribed procedures for refunds and adjustments, rather than bypassing them through writ petitions.

6. Validity of the Respondents' Procedure for Refund and Adjustment of Excess Security Deposits:
The Court upheld the Respondents' procedure for handling excess security deposits, which involves scrutiny and approval by the competent authorities before any refund or adjustment. The Court emphasized that the Petitioners must adhere to the statutory procedures for claiming refunds or adjustments.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the Petitioners must follow the procedures laid down in the AGST Act and Rules for refunds and adjustments of excess security deposits. The Court found no illegality in the Respondents' demands for additional security and emphasized the need for compliance with statutory provisions. The interim orders passed in each of the writ petitions were vacated.