RAJDOOT ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. He calls in question the notice of the Commercial Tax Officer (I), Visakhapatnam, RC. No. VVVI. 8648(GST) dated 16/02/1982 calling upon him to make an additional security deposit of Rs. 18,000 on pain of the registration certificate granted to him under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act being cancelled. The facts alleged in the notice are that the petitioner, an assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer (I), Visakhapatnam, is not submitting his returns regularly. Up to the date of the notice, even as per the returns filed by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 30,634 is due and payable by the petitioner in respect of his turnover relating to the months of October and November, 1980. He has not submitted the monthly returns for the months of October, November and December, 1981. Other returns he has submitted belatedly. From the record of his previous returns the average tax payable by the petitioner worked out to Rs. 18,000 per month. In view of this, the petitioner was required to pay further security deposit of Rs. 18,000.

(2.) The facts mentioned in the show cause notice are not disputed. The only question is whether, in the circumstances, the respondent has jurisdiction to require the petitioner to pay an additional security deposit of Rs. 18.000 and in exercising that jurisdiction he has exercised his discretion properly. Rule 29(7) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules empowers the registering authority to demand additional security from the dealers. That rule reads as follows :

(3.) In fact having regard to the default committed by the petitioner, the registering authority was competent to demand security deposit of an amount not exceeding one-half of the tax payable on the turnover of the dealer for the year.