2011 (9) TMI 910

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quot;the TST Rules), applied, on January 2, 2004, to the competent authority for registration as a transporter. With its application, the petitioner also made a security deposit of ₹ 5,00,000. The petitioner was accordingly registered as a transporter under the TST Act and the TST Rules. As the petitioner could not run its business of transportation, a notice was, on April 16, 2007, issued by respondent No. 2, namely, Superintendent of Taxes, Charge II, to the petitioner directing the latter to show cause as to why the petitioner's registration certificate shall not be cancelled inasmuch as the petitioner had not been operating his transport business. The petitioner, then, wrote back to respondent No. 1, namely, Commissioner of T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T Act, 2004. The refund petition is thus disposed of." From a bare reading of the contents of the order, dated September 16, 2009, aforementioned, it appears that the respondents claimed to have forfeited the security deposit, because the petitioner had failed to use the forms, which were supplied to the petitioner by the respondents/authorities concerned and discontinued his transportation. It needs to be borne in mind that security deposit is made to ensure that any taxable liability of a person, who offers to get registered as a dealer under a fiscal statute, does not escape realization/recovery. If, after his registration, a person chooses not to carry on his business for which he stands registered as dealer or transporter under ....