Prospective application of revised security deposit barred retrospective enhancement of a pending registration requirement.

A revised security deposit could not be applied retrospectively to a pending transporter registration application where the earlier memorandum had already fixed and approved the security requirement. Registration under the Tripura Value Added Tax Act and Rules was governed by the security regime in force when the amount was demanded and determined, and the later memorandum expressly operated prospectively. The enhanced security therefore could not reopen the completed determination or justify an additional demand, and the applicant remained entitled to registration on the security already deposited.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revised security deposit fixed by the later memorandum could be applied to the petitioner's pending registration application so as to demand an enhanced amount retrospectively.

Analysis: Registration of a transporter under Section 22 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 required compliance with the security regime determined under Rule 12(4) of the Tripura Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The petitioner's application had been processed and security had been demanded and approved when the earlier memorandum fixing the courier category security at Rs. 3,60,000 was in force. The later memorandum expressly stated that the enhanced security would operate prospectively. Since the relevant date for determining the applicable security was the date on which the security was fixed and demanded, the later enhancement could not be used to reopen the already-determined requirement and impose an additional amount on a retrospective basis.

Conclusion: The additional demand for enhanced security was unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to registration on the basis of the security already deposited.

---