TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 3 lakhs instead of ₹ 5 lakhs. In other respects the order demanding the additional security remains intact. Six weeks time is granted to furnish the additional security from the date of order. - 116,117,118 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2008 - PRAKASH KRISHNA , J. PRAKASH KRISHNA J. These three revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ) arise out of common order dated March 5, 2001 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, whereby and whereunder it has dismissed all the three Second Appeal Nos. 513, 515 and 514 of 2000 filed by the dealer in respect of an order passed under section 8C of the Act demanding additional security and cancellation of registration both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 lakhs of two registered dealers or in the alternative to furnish a national saving certificate of Rs. 5 lakhs pledged in favour of the Department. The said order was challenged unsuccessfully before the first appellate authority and the Tribunal. It has given rise to T.T.R. No. 116 of 2001. The other two revisions arise out of consequential order cancelling the registration of the dealer under the Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act for failure to furnish additional security as demanded by the Department. The learned counsel for the dealer advanced his argument with reference to T.T.R. No. 116 of 2001 wherein the following questions of law have been sought to be raised: (i) Whether additional security could be demanded f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned standing counsel, on the other hand, supports the order of the Tribunal and submits that the demand of additional security on the facts of the present case is perfectly justified. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the dealer applied for and was granted registration under the relevant Act on March 4, 1999 with effect from July 22, 1999 under the Central Sales Tax Act as well on furnishing of security of Rs. 15,000. It is also not in dispute that for the month of July 1999 it admitted tax liability of Rs. 65,637. It is also not in dispute that the said firm is a proprietorship concern and in form 14, the application for registration, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the dealer, it is difficult to agree with him. Security, as per terms of section 8C can be demanded for proper realization of tax or penalty. It may be true that the dealer has deposited the admitted tax along with the return for the month of July 1999. This is one aspect of the matter. However, the other aspect of the case which is also equally important is to protect the interest of the Revenue. The object of demanding security or additional security under the Act is to protect the interest of the Revenue so that in case of default in payment of tax or penalty, the Revenue can realise its dues from the dealer. The amount of security that may be required from any dealer shall in no case exceed the tax payable in accorda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case was afforded before making the order demanding additional security to the dealer. Security is required for ensuring the payment of tax and as in the impugned order therein it was not mentioned what is the amount of tax leviable on the sales and whether the dealer has paid any tax or whether there are any arrears justifying the demand, the order demanding the additional security was set aside. This case has hardly any application to the controversy involved at present. The order demanding the security is a speaking order and contains reasons which cannot be said to be irrelevant. This court granted interim relief on the condition of furnishing additional security of Rs. 2 lakhs which has been furnished, submits the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|