TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter inquiry, the petitioner-firm was found competent to have the registration certificate as the transporter (courier), though belatedly on 22.04.2015, the demand for security deposit was made and as such the relevant date for purpose of determining the rate of security deposit shall invariably be 22.04.2015, not 31.07.2015. By way of applying the new rate in the case of the petitioner-firm, we have no doubt in our mind that the respondents have given retrospective effect of the memorandum dated 20.07.2015, which according to us, in the context of this case, cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned decision/order as reflected in the communication dated 16.10.2015 is interfered with and set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.(C) No.669 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2016 - Mr. S. Talapatra, J. For the petitioner : Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. D.C. Nath, Advocate JUDGMENT By means of the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the respondent No.3 contained in the communication dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition). By the said communication dated 16.10.2015, the petitioner, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The petitioner had applied for registration as the transporter, being the courier and as such, in view of that determination as reflected in the memorandum dated 17.11.2011, on the date of application i.e. 22.04.2014 he was liable to pay the security deposit to the extent of ₹ 3.60 lacs. Rule 12(4) of the TVAT Rules further provides that, the security or additional security to be furnished by the registered dealer under section 20 or by registered Transporter under section 22 shall be determined by the Commissioner on the basis of nature of business, capital investment and taxable turnover etc. It appears that by the memorandum dated 17.11.2011 the Commissioner of Taxes has segmented the transporters for purpose of security deposit in 4(four) broad categories i.e. (a) Transporters other than couriers, (b) Branch office of transporters other than couriers, (c) Couriers and (d) Couriers (PMRY beneficiaries). 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner-firm applied for registration under the category of couriers and hence, as stated, the petitioner-firm was liable to pay the security deposit to the extent of ₹ 3.60 lacs. Though the application was made o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee Ramkrishna Courier Cargo Servies, Barjala, Agartala, Tripura West it is stated that the amount of security deposit in respect of Cargo Courier Services has since been re-fixed at ₹ 1200000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) only vide Memo No.F.1-6(30)- TAX/2004/9251-75 DATED 20.07.2015 INSTEAD OF ₹ 3,60,000/- and whereas your concern did not deposit the said amount of ₹ 3,60,000/- before introduction the Memo issued on 20.07.2015 as stated above. You are, requested to please deposit the remaining amount of ₹ 8,40,000/- (Rs.12,00,000/- (-) ₹ 3,60,000/-)= ₹ 8,40,000/- as security for registration as a transporter immediately. Yours faithfully, Sd/- illegible Superintendent of Taxes Charge-VII, Agartala The petitioner has challenged the said decision/order, raising an additional demand for purpose of registration. 8. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the registration under Section 22 of the TVAT Act is pre-requisite to carry on the business of the Courier which would act as the carrier for importing taxable goods into the State of Tripura. Though the application was made on 22.04.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise would imply the retrospective operation of the said memorandum dated 20.07.2015? 12. Ordinarily, unless a contrary intention appears, a legislative act is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. It is based on the principle lex prospicit non respicit, meaning, the law looks forward, not backward. On the principle of fairness, unless the piece of legislation provides by way of expressed provision of its operation retrospectively that cannot be allowed to operate retrospectively. When the memorandum dated 20.07.2015 itself provides that, that would operate prospectively, by means of no interpretation or by any manner the said memorandum can be applied retrospectively. In this case, the demand as raised by the respondent No.3 is an apparent outcome of revising the earlier determination of the security deposit in terms of the memorandum dated 17.11.2011, which was in force at the relevant time of consideration. When the context makes the meaning of a word quite clear it becomes unnecessary to search for and select a particular meaning for giving a different interpretation. Note No.29, which appears to be the basis of the impugned decision/order as reflect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
