9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty for registration as a transporter. With its application, the petitioner also made a security deposit of ₹ 5,00,000. The petitioner was accordingly registered as a transporter under the TST Act and the TST Rules. As the petitioner could not run its business of transportation, a notice was, on April 16, 2007, issued by respondent No. 2, namely, Superintendent of Taxes, Charge II, to the petitioner directing the latter to show cause as to why the petitioner's registration certificate shall not be cancelled inasmuch as the petitioner had not been operating his transport business. The petitioner, then, wrote back to respondent No. 1, namely, Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Tripura, requesting him to withdraw the petitioner&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eading of the contents of the order, dated September 16, 2009, aforementioned, it appears that the respondents claimed to have forfeited the security deposit, because the petitioner had failed to use the forms, which were supplied to the petitioner by the respondents/authorities concerned and discontinued his transportation. It needs to be borne in mind that security deposit is made to ensure that any taxable liability of a person, who offers to get registered as a dealer under a fiscal statute, does not escape realization/recovery. If, after his registration, a person chooses not to carry on his business for which he stands registered as dealer or transporter under a taxing statute, his security deposit, in the absence of any law, canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, because the security deposit was made by the petitioner for the purpose of carrying on its chosen business. For the delay, which has taken place, the petitioner may reasonably demand interest, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that the ends of justice would be satisfied if, the security deposit of ₹ 5,00,000 is directed to be refunded to the petitioner. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of8 justice, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2, namely, Superintendent of Taxes, Charge II, to refund/return the said security deposit of ₹ 5,00,000 to the petitioner within a period of six w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
