https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392518 Security deposit could not be demanded for amending a transporter's registration certificate by adding a go-down where the premises was not shown to be a branch office. Section 22 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act and Rule 17 of the Rules require disclosure of head office, branch offices and go-downs, but the later memorandum dated 20 July 2015 provided nil security for amendments other than inclusion of a branch office and superseded the 17 November 2011 memorandum. On the facts, the request was only to add a delivery point, so treating the go-down as a branch office was legally untenable. The security demand was therefore impermissible and the impugned communication was set aside. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Mar 2021 15:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392518 Security deposit could not be demanded for amending a transporter's registration certificate by adding a go-down where the premises was not shown to be a branch office. Section 22 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Act and Rule 17 of the Rules require disclosure of head office, branch offices and go-downs, but the later memorandum dated 20 July 2015 provided nil security for amendments other than inclusion of a branch office and superseded the 17 November 2011 memorandum. On the facts, the request was only to add a delivery point, so treating the go-down as a branch office was legally untenable. The security demand was therefore impermissible and the impugned communication was set aside. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392518