https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152579 Cash security lying with the department could be adjusted towards the deposit required for entertaining an application under section 30 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, because section 29(1) and Rule 88 permit adjustment of refundable or payable amounts against dealer security. The short deposit objection also failed where the record did not show pending penalty proceedings under section 13-A; with the relevant records in the tax authorities' custody and the existence of such proceedings within their special knowledge, the dealer could not be faulted for the alleged deficit. The revision was accordingly rejected and the deposit treated as sufficient. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jul 2013 17:14:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152579 Cash security lying with the department could be adjusted towards the deposit required for entertaining an application under section 30 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, because section 29(1) and Rule 88 permit adjustment of refundable or payable amounts against dealer security. The short deposit objection also failed where the record did not show pending penalty proceedings under section 13-A; with the relevant records in the tax authorities' custody and the existence of such proceedings within their special knowledge, the dealer could not be faulted for the alleged deficit. The revision was accordingly rejected and the deposit treated as sufficient. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 29 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152579