1971 (8) TMI 203 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules excessive security deposit demand violates sales tax laws, favoring spinning & weaving mills business.

The court found the demand for a security deposit of Rs. 25,000 excessive and not in line with statutory provisions under sales tax laws. It ruled in ... - Issues:1. Validity of demand for security deposit under sales tax laws.2. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding the power to demand security.3. Requirement for the prescribed authority to estimate turnover and demand security accordingly.Analysis:1. The judgment dealt with the validity of a demand for a security deposit under sales tax laws. The petitioner, a spinning and weaving mills business, was not prompt in tax payments for the assessment year 1966-67. The respondent demanded a security deposit of Rs. 25,000 due to the default. The petitioner challenged this demand, arguing that it was invalid as it was not directly related to the sale or purchase of goods, which are essential for sales tax. The petitioner also contended that the demand exceeded the permissible amount under the law. The court examined the provisions of the relevant section and rules, emphasizing that the authority must have good and sufficient reasons to demand security and must provide the dealer with an opportunity to explain. The court concluded that the demand for security was excessive and not in line with the statutory provisions, leading to the judgment in favor of the petitioner.2. The judgment delved into the interpretation of statutory provisions regarding the power to demand security under sales tax laws. Section 21(5) of the Act empowers the authority to demand security for proper tax payment, not exceeding half of the estimated tax liability. The court emphasized that this power should be exercised based on good and sufficient reasons and after providing the dealer with an opportunity to be heard. The court rejected the revenue's argument that the demand for security was valid since the petitioner did not offer alternative security, highlighting that the authority must estimate the turnover and demand security accordingly. The court referred to a Supreme Court case to support the legitimacy of demanding security for tax payment under the Act, emphasizing the importance of reasonable safeguards in tax collection.3. The judgment addressed the requirement for the prescribed authority to estimate the dealer's turnover and demand security accordingly. The court noted that the demand for a security deposit of Rs. 25,000 was excessive compared to the estimated tax liability based on the petitioner's monthly returns. The court highlighted that the demand should not exceed half of the tax payable on the estimated turnover. The court found an error in the order due to the excessive demand for security, leading to the decision to allow the writ petition and remove the order. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures and limits when demanding security under the sales tax laws.