TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside demand for retroactive security deposit, orders prompt registration, no costs</h1> <h3>Shree Ramkrishna Courier & Cargo Services Versus State of Tripura and others</h3> The court set aside the decision demanding an additional security deposit from a proprietorship firm for registration as a transporter. It held that the ... Security for registration as a transporter - Tripura VAT - the petitioner-firm applied for registration under the category of couriers and hence, as stated, the petitioner-firm was liable to pay the security deposit to the extent of ₹ 3.60 lacs. Though the application was made on 22.04.2014, the respondents, the respondent No.2 in particular, did not take any decision on the application filed by the petitioner firm for registration till 22.04.2015 when approval for registration was accorded - whether the Memorandum dated 20.07.2015 would apply in the case of the petitioner for purpose of raising additional security deposit or whether such exercise would imply the retrospective operation of the said memorandum dated 20.07.2015? Held that: - In the records as produced by the respondents or in the counter-affidavit no explanation has been given as to why the application for registration which was filed on 24.04.2014 was kept pending till 22.04.2015 when the petitioner-firm was asked to deposit the security for registration. When after inquiry, the petitioner-firm was found competent to have the registration certificate as the transporter (courier), though belatedly on 22.04.2015, the demand for security deposit was made and as such the relevant date for purpose of determining the rate of security deposit shall invariably be 22.04.2015, not 31.07.2015. By way of applying the new rate in the case of the petitioner-firm, we have no doubt in our mind that the respondents have given retrospective effect of the memorandum dated 20.07.2015, which according to us, in the context of this case, cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned decision/order as reflected in the communication dated 16.10.2015 is interfered with and set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the additional security deposit demand.2. Retrospective application of the revised security deposit memorandum.3. Delay in processing the registration application.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Additional Security Deposit Demand:The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, challenged the order dated 16.10.2015, which demanded an additional security deposit of Rs. 8,40,000 for registration as a transporter. Initially, the petitioner applied for registration under Section 22 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (TVAT Act) and was required to deposit Rs. 3.60 lakhs as per the memorandum dated 17.11.2011. Despite depositing this amount on 31.07.2015, the respondents demanded an additional Rs. 8,40,000 based on a revised memorandum dated 20.07.2015, which increased the security deposit to Rs. 12,00,000.2. Retrospective Application of the Revised Security Deposit Memorandum:The core issue was whether the revised memorandum dated 20.07.2015, which increased the security deposit, could be applied retrospectively to the petitioner’s application. The court noted that the memorandum explicitly stated it would operate prospectively. The principle of lex prospicit non respicit (the law looks forward, not backward) was invoked, asserting that unless legislation explicitly states otherwise, it should not be applied retrospectively. The court found that applying the new rate to the petitioner, who had already complied with the previous rate, was unjust and amounted to an impermissible retrospective application.3. Delay in Processing the Registration Application:The petitioner applied for registration on 22.04.2014, but the respondents did not take any action until 22.04.2015, when the security deposit was approved. The delay was unexplained and unjustified. The court observed that the relevant date for determining the applicable security deposit rate should be 22.04.2015, the date when the petitioner was asked to deposit the security, not 31.07.2015, when the deposit was made. The court criticized the respondents for the delay and for applying the revised rate retrospectively.Conclusion:The court interfered with and set aside the impugned decision/order dated 16.10.2015, directing the respondents to issue the registration certificate to the petitioner within 30 days. The court allowed the writ petition to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.Final Judgment:The respondents were directed to issue the registration certificate to the petitioner within 30 days, and the writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs. The records were returned to the respondents' counsel.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
