PREMKUMAR P. Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner is a dealer registered under the KVAT Act. He obtained registration during the year 2011. At that time, he furnished security of Rs.75,000/- as provided under Section 17(1) of the KVAT Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Subsequently, respondents demanded additional security of Rs.5,00,000/- which was also remitted. Still later, petitioner was issued Ext.P3 notice stating that, having regard to the volume of transactions, in order to protect the interest of the revenue, he should furnish an additional security of Rs.50,00,000/-, in any manner as provided under Section 17 of the Act r/w Rule 19 of the KVAT Rules. Petitioner did not furnish security as directed. Therefore, Ext.P6 order was issued cancelling his registration both under the Act and under CST Act. It is challenging Ext.P6 order, the writ petition is filed.

(3.) A reading of Ext.P6 shows that in addition to the powers under Section 17 of the KVAT Act, power under Section 7(4)(b) of the CST Act has also been invoked and that it is accordingly that registration under the KVAT Act and CST Act were cancelled. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the registrations under the KVAT Act and CST Act have been cancelled ignoring the provisions of Section 17 of the KVAT Act and Section 7 of the CST Act and therefore, the impugned proceedings are illegal.