TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive an enhanced security of Rs. 9 lakhs under the provisions of section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner is a dealer, who is registered both under the local as well as the Central Act. The petitioner was registered in the year 1983 and, according to the petitioner, till today it has no taxable turnover under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner's busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax was seen. He further observed that the total gross turnover for the years 1986-87 to 1989-90 came to Rs. 5,47,16,007, and that the average turnover per year was Rs. 1,36,79,001. According to the Sales Tax Officer, the liability to tax came to Rs. 9,57,530 and the petitioner was, accordingly, asked to furnish additional security of Rs. 9 lakhs. This is the order which has been challenged before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the sales which were local sales. Learned counsel for the respondents has admitted that right from the assessment year 1983-84 till today, the petitioner has no taxable turnover under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. He further states that the estimate of turnover of Rs. 1,36,79,001 mentioned in the impugned order is for the turnover under the local Act. On a query raised by us, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is in excess of the limit prescribed by section 7(3BB). The impugned order does not indicate that under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, the petitioner will be required to pay such an amount of tax which can justify an additional security of Rs. 9 lakhs. The impugned order is contrary to the provisions of section 7(3BB) and we, therefore, quash it. The petition stands disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
