Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 372 (GAU)

Akshay Coal Suppliers v. State of Assam

2005-05-11

BIPLAB KUMAR SHARMA

body2005
JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. All the writ petitions are based on same set of facts with some minor variations relating to dates, years and amounts in respect of the demands made by the Respondents for additional security towards issuance of road challans for carrying coal in the course of inter-State movement by road. According to the Petitioners such demands for additional security made by the Respondent are contrary to the provisions of law and can very well be adjusted against the excess security amounts lying with the Respondents. The reliefs prayed for in all the writ petitions are the same. Thus, the writ Petitioners were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. All the writ Petitioners are registered coal dealers and are assessable to taxes both under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with the Central Sales Tax (Assam) Rules, 1957. During the course of their business, coals are transported within and outside the State of Assam by road. For transporting/carrying coal, the Petitioners are required to send road challans issued by the Superintendent of Taxes and for that purposes demand for security on every challan is made for every truck load of coal moved within and outside of the State of Assam. The Respondents insist that the security deposits challan be produced on the way whenever demanded at the check gates or otherwise and unless the same are produced, the trucks loaded with coal are not allowed to pass and/or proceed further and are kept detained until production of security deposits challans showing payment of security. 3. According to the Petitioners the above action on the part of the Respondents demanding security is not in accordance with law. They assert that although the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (AGST Act) read with Assam General Sales Tax Rules, 1993 (AGST Rules) as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (CST Act) read with Central Sales Tax (Assam) Rules, 1957 (CST, Assam Rules) empower the Respondents to demand security, but the same is subject to conditions precedent and other mandatory conditions provided thereunder. 4. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondents make demand of security money of Rs. 2000/- against six wheeler vehicles and Rs. 4000/- against ten wheeler vehicles. 4. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Respondents make demand of security money of Rs. 2000/- against six wheeler vehicles and Rs. 4000/- against ten wheeler vehicles. Till the filing of the writ petitions, the Petitioners all along paid such security money. According to them such security deposits are disproportionate to the anticipated tax payable and therefore huge excess sum of money collected from the Petitioners got accumulated and are lying with the Respondents. Be it stated here that the Petitioners are also required to make security deposits at the time of their registration under the CST Act. 5. Referring to various provisions of the aforementioned Acts and the Rules, it is the case of the Petitioners that the manner and method in which the demand for additional security are being made is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Such demands, according to the Petitioners, are arbitrary and unreasonable. However the Petitioners have not put any challenge to the demand for additional security made by the Respondents. But their prayer is that the excess security deposits which have accumulated and are lying with the Respondents be utilized or adjusted towards future demands for additional security. For example, according to the claim of the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1898/05 the accumulated excess security collected from the Petitioners for the years 2001 -2002 and 2002-2003 amounting to Rs. 31,67,045/ - is still lying with the Respondents. In this connection, the Petitioners in the said writ petition have annexed the Annexures-II and III assessment orders showing the excess security deposits as Rs. 22,69,473/- and Rs. 8,97,572/-. 6. Similarly in all other cases it is the case of the Petitioners that as per the assessment orders furnished by the Respondents themselves under the CST (Assam) Rules, 1957, the excess security deposits in respect of each of the Petitioners are lying with the Respondents which can very well be utilized against the present and future demands for additional security instead of insisting for furnishing further additional security. Thus, the prayer made in the writ petitions is for a direction to the Respondents to issue/counter sign the road challans against the excess security deposits lying with the Respondents and not to insist upon fresh additional security deposits. Thus, the prayer made in the writ petitions is for a direction to the Respondents to issue/counter sign the road challans against the excess security deposits lying with the Respondents and not to insist upon fresh additional security deposits. In a nutshell, it is the prayer of the Petitioners that the excess security deposits already lying with the Respondents be treated as the security towards issuance of the road challans permitting to movement of their trucks carrying coal. 7. The Respondents have filed their counter affidavit in W.P. (C) No. 1622/05. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is the same, they relied upon the said affidavit as common to all the writ petitions. The stand in the counter affidavit, inter alia, is that the Petitioners are not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, in view of the alternative remedy provides in the AGST Act and the AGST Rules for redressal of their grievance, if any. According to them the said Act and the Rules amply provide a scheme for refund of any excess amount which the tax authority have collected from the Petitioners. As per the stand in the affidavit, at the time of registration of a dealer under the provision of CST Act, the security is realized. This apart, in case of coal, jute etc., additional security is also realized based on per truck as regulatory/precautionary measure so as to prevent evasion of tax. 8. The security amount is usually fixed at a higher side, i.e. by applying the rate of tax applicable in respect of Inter-State sales made by unregistered dealers. Such security are realized in the form of challan, bank guarantee and NSC. For Inter-State sales of coal by registered dealers against 'C' Form, 4 per cent tax is applicable and in all other cases it is 8 per cent. Security is usually collected at 8 per cent assuming that sales can be made to unregistered dealers. Therefore on assessment, the assessed tax is retained from the security deposits furnished by the dealers and in case of any deficit, the balance amount is recovered through demand notice as per the provisions of Section 17 of the AGST Act read with Rule 25 of the AGST Rules. Therefore on assessment, the assessed tax is retained from the security deposits furnished by the dealers and in case of any deficit, the balance amount is recovered through demand notice as per the provisions of Section 17 of the AGST Act read with Rule 25 of the AGST Rules. In case of any excess amount, same is refunded to the dealers as per the provisions of Section 30 of the AGST Act read with Rule 36 of the AGST Rules. 9. The counter affidavit further states that as per the provisions of Section 30, the refund of the excess amount can be caused through cash payment, adjustment of such excess amount towards other dues like tax, interest, penalty or any other such dues payable by the dealer in respect of any period. It is the further stand in the counter affidavit that Section 24(3) of the AGST Act envisages that the security furnished may, in the event of default of payment of any tax, penalty or any dues be adjusted towards such tax, penalty or other dues. Thus, security deposits are meant for past dues of the completed business, transaction or dealings. While refund in case of any excess deposits is permissible under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, such excess deposits cannot be utilized against for future transactions bringing ambiguity to the whole matter. It is also the stand of the Respondents in their counter affidavit that the Petitioners instead of insisting for adjustment from excess security deposits, should take refund of the same as per the provision of the Act and the Rules. According to them, the adjustment as has been prayed for by the Petitioners if granted, will lead to tax evasion inasmuch it will be difficult for the various authorities of the Tax Department to keep track of the records and in the process the unscrupulous will be successful in avoiding payment of tax. 10. The Respondents have finally stated in their counter affidavit that their being no provision under the Acts and the Rules to make any adjustment in respect of the excess security deposits towards issuance of road challans taking the same to be the additional security and there being adequate provisions in the Acts and the Rules to get refund of the excess deposits, the Respondents cannot act contrary to such provisions. 11. 11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as for the Respondents. Leading the arguments on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. J. L. Sarkar and Mrs. B. Goyal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, strenuously argued that the whole action of the Respondents in demanding the additional security for issuance of road challans in spite of the excess security which are already lying with the Respondents, is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Referring to the facts involved in their respective cases, they argued in reference to the various provisions of the Acts and the Rules that so far as the refund is concerned, no prejudice would be caused to the Govt. Inasmuch as undoubtedly excess amounts are lying with the Respondents which can very well be utilized as additional security towards present and future issuance of road challans to the Petitioners. 12. According to Mr. Sarkar, the whole action on the part of the Respondents is violative of Articles14, 301 and 304(b) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Sarkar specifically referred to Annexures-IV and V both dated 15.5.03 by which the parties, M/s. Mahaverra Coal Traders and M/s. Vishnu Coal Traders Ltd. were issued road challans by adjusting the excess amount of security furnished during the assessment years of 2002-03 and 2000-01 & 2002-03 respectively and submitted that such adjustments having been made in respect of some other parties, there is no reason as to why the Petitioners should also not be extended with similar treatment. Referring to Annexure-VII communication dated 3.3.05 made to the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1898/05 by the Sr. Superintendent of Taxes, Jalukbari Check Post, Guwahati by which the adjustment was refused to the Petitioners and instead they were advised to apply for refund of the excess security as per the provisions of the Act, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that such a decision conveyed by the said communication is contrary to law, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. Ms. B. Goyal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions. 1) 45 STC 128 (Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.) 2) 137 STC 318 (Pradip Kr. 13. Ms. B. Goyal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions. 1) 45 STC 128 (Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.) 2) 137 STC 318 (Pradip Kr. Sarawgi & Sons (HUF) v. Commissioner of Taxes and Ors.) 3) (2005) 1 GLR 363 (R.N. Omprakash Anand v. State of Assam and Ors.) 4) 1993 (1) GLR 467 (Lalla Mookh Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxes) 5) 31 STC 516 (Orissa Stores v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela and Ors.) 6) (1982) 1 SCC 39 (Bishambhar Daya Ch. Mohan v. State of U.P.) 7) (2004) 2 SCC 297 (DDA and Ors. v. Joginder S. Monga) 8) AIR 1967 SC 1836 (Satwant Sing Swahny v. D. Ramarathanam) 9) 98 STC 531 (Lalla Mookh Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxes) 10) 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 150 (State of M.P. v. G.S. Dall Flour Mills). 14. Mr. Sarkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1898/05 placed reliance on the decision as reported in 98 STC 531 (Lalla Mookh Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxes). 15. Countering the arguments made on behalf of the Petitioners, Mr. D. Saikia, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents referring to the stand in the counter affidavit, defended the action of the Respondents. He submitted that there being inbuilt provisions in the Act and the Rules for refund of excess amount lying with the Respondents, the Petitioners should take recourse to such provisions instead of demanding an action on the Respondents for which there is no sanction under the Acts and the Rules. He submitted that additional security is demanded to avoid evasion of tax and in the event of granting the prayers made by the Petitioners for adjustment etc., same will lead to anomalies resulting in tax evasion at the cost of the State revenue. He submitted that after an application for refund of excess amount is made same is scrutinized as per the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and thereafter the order of refund is passed quantifying the amount of refund. Oily after such an order of refund, the Petitioners can pray for adjustment etc. or can take refund of the amount. He placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his arguments: 1) (1997) 5 SCC 536 (Mafatlal Justries Ltd. and Ors. Oily after such an order of refund, the Petitioners can pray for adjustment etc. or can take refund of the amount. He placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his arguments: 1) (1997) 5 SCC 536 (Mafatlal Justries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.) 2) 134 STC 113 (National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. State of Manipur and Ors.) 3) (2001) 10 SCC 617 (Union of India v. Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd.) 4) (2005) 1 GLR 469 (Indian Oil Corporation v. K.K. Bhuyan) 16. I have give my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondents. I have also considered the materials on record and the provisions of the Acts and the Rules. Section 7 of the CST Act deals with registration of dealers. Sections 7, 2A and3A empower the tax authorities to obtain the securities from the dealers. As noticed above, in the present proceeding we are not concerned with die manner and method in which the security and/or additional security has been realized from the Petitioners, since none of the Petitioners has questioned the same. Their only grievance is in respect of the demands made by the Respondents for furnishing the additional security towards issuance of road challans. According to them instead of making such demands, the Respondents should utilize the excess security deposits lying with them for the purpose. 17. Section 9 of the CST Act deals with levy and collection of tax and penalties. Section 9(2) empowers the tax authorities to assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of tax including any interest or penalty payable by a dealer under the CST Act as if the tax or interest or penalty payable by such a dealer under the Act is a tax or interest or penalty payable under the General Sales Tax law of the State; and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State. 18. 18. As per the provisions of Section 30 of the AGST Act an Assessing Officer shall, on a claim being made in that behalf before the expiry of three years from the date of assessment for the period to which such payment (sic.) refund to the dealer the amount of any tax, interest, penalty or other sum paid by such dealer in respect of any period in excess of the amount due from him under this Act for that period either by payment or deduction or adjustment of such excess from the amount of tax, interest, penalty or other sum due from him in respect of any other period. 19. Under Sub-section 2 of Section 30 where any tax is levied under this Act on the sale or purchase of any goods referred to in Section 14 of the CST Act and such goods are subsequently sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, the dealer paying tax on such sale under that Act shall be entitled to get the amount of tax paid under this Act refunded to him on application by him to the Assessing Officer in the prescribed manner within one year from the date of assessment for the year to which the sale relates and the Assessing Officer shall, if the application is in order, refund the amount in such manner as may be prescribed. 20. Section 31 of the AGST Act empowers the authority to withdraw the refund in the event of an order relating to such refund is the subject matter of an appeal or further proceedings. 21. Section 32 of the said Act provides for interest on refund, if for reasons of delay, a refund, being other than a refund under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 due to a dealer under Section 30 is not made with ninety days of such refund being due, the dealer shall be entitled to receive simple interest from the State Government. 22. Rule 36 of the AGST Rules deals with the procedure of refund. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 36 provides that when the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the refund claimed is due, he shall record an order sanctioning the refund. Various authorities have been prescribed for taking prior approval depending upon the amount to be refunded. 22. Rule 36 of the AGST Rules deals with the procedure of refund. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 36 provides that when the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the refund claimed is due, he shall record an order sanctioning the refund. Various authorities have been prescribed for taking prior approval depending upon the amount to be refunded. When an order for refund is passed, refund vouchers in No. XVI shall be issued in favour of the claimant, if he desires payment in cash. The advice in form No. XVII shall at the same time be founded to the Treasury Officer concerned. As per the provisions of Sub-rule 6 of Rule 36, after the refund is sanctioned, if the claimant desires to adjust the amount and the same is due to him, the Assessing Officer shall set off the amount to be refunded or any part thereof against tax, if any, remaining payable by the claimant or against his further dues. 23. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules, it will be seen that a trader is entitled to get refund of any tax, interest and penalty or other sum paid by him in excess of the amount due from him. Referring to the provisions of Section 9(2) of the CST Act, it is the case of the Petitioners that such refund and the procedure thereof are only in respect of tax, penalty, interest etc. and not in respect of the excess additional security furnished by them as per the demand of the Respondents. 24. Apart from fact that the expression used in Section 30 of the AGST Act include "Tax" and "other sum" it also an admitted position that the additional security obtained by the Respondents from the Petitioners are adjusted / utilized against payable tax. Thus, the additional security is realized for the purpose of utilization towards payable tax. As stated in the counter affidavit, the security amount is usually fixed at a higher side, i.e. by applying the rate of tax applicable in respect of inter-State sales made by the unregistered dealers which is 8 percent. Hence on assessment, the assessed tax is retained from the security deposits so furnished by the traders and if there is any deficit, such balance amount is recovered through the demand notice as per the provisions of Section 17 of the AGST Act read with AGST Rules. 25. Hence on assessment, the assessed tax is retained from the security deposits so furnished by the traders and if there is any deficit, such balance amount is recovered through the demand notice as per the provisions of Section 17 of the AGST Act read with AGST Rules. 25. The scheme of refund will have to be understood in this context only. If the Petitioners are entitled to any refund, they may take the same as envisaged under-Section 30 of the AGST Act and Rule 36 of the AGST Rules. If the demand made by the Petitioners for adjustment of such additional security stated to be lying with the Respondents is to be accepted, same will have to be de hors the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 26. The procedure having been laid in the Acts and Rules, same will have to be followed. There cannot be any via media bypassing such procedure. Once it is held that the security/additional security obtained from the traders and for that matter the Petitioners for the purpose of adjustment against the payable tax is for all practical purpose is the amount against payable tax, the procedure laid down for refund of any excess of such amount will have to be followed. As noticed above, we are not concerned with the procedure of collecting the security and additional security from the Petitioners by the Respondents and the same is not the issue in the present proceeding. Only grievance raised in this batch of writ petitions is that the Respondents instead of making further demand for additional security towards issuance of road challans, they should go for adjustment by way of utilizing the excess amount lying with them. Such an exercise will have to be necessarily done following the due procedure an envisaged under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 27. There is no gainsaying that the adjustment as prayed for by the Petitioners will necessarily involve accounting which can not be done instantaneously on the threshold of issuance of the counter signing of the road challans. The safest device so as to avoid tax evasion will be to take security as has all along been done and being paid by the Petitioners to the Respondents. The safest device so as to avoid tax evasion will be to take security as has all along been done and being paid by the Petitioners to the Respondents. In case of any excess deposits which may eventually revealed upon scrutiny of the relevant materials and passing of orders of refund on that basis can very well be taken back by the traders along with the interest or can be adjusted against their future liabilities. Thus, by very nature of such deposits and their utilization, there is no question of making any adjustment of such deposits as has been prayed for by the Petitioner leading to chaotic and anomalous situation. Needless to say that if a thing is require to be done in a particular manner, same will have to be done in that manner only and not otherwise. 28. The orders on which the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1898/ 05 have placed reliance (Annexure-V and VI), will rather support the case of the Respondents instead of the Petitioners. On perusal of the said two orders it will be seen that the orders issued allowing adjustment and the excess deposits of security furnished during the assessment years in question were pursuant to the orders passed by the authorities of the department. In the instant case also, the Respondent are not opposed to make such adjustments as envisaged under Rule 36 of the AGST Rules. What they have insisted upon is that the Petitioners should first make an application for refund as envisaged under the provisions of the Acts and the Rules and thereafter upon passing of an order of refund on proper security of all the materials, the Petitioners will be entitled either to get refund of the excess amount along with the interest or to adjust such excess amount against the future dues as envisaged under Rule 36(6) of the AGST Rules. If the procedure envisaged under the Acts and the Rules is insisted upon by the Respondents, I am of the considered opinion that no fault is attribute to the Respondents. Annexure-VII letter dated 3.3.05 in W.P. (C) No. 1898/05 is also in the same context by which the Petitioners were advised to apply for refund as per the relevant provisions. 29. Annexure-VII letter dated 3.3.05 in W.P. (C) No. 1898/05 is also in the same context by which the Petitioners were advised to apply for refund as per the relevant provisions. 29. The case of R. N. Omprakash Anand (supra) on which the learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance is altogether in a different context. In that case the Petitioner filed objection against the direction of the authority to make payment of security money under Section 7(1) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956. The Petitioner was allowed adjustment and while filing his return he prayed for adjustment of the security amount against the dues under the AGST Act. The impugned notice did not disclose any grounds or reasons why the security is demanded. It was found that the Petitioner in that case had filed the copies of the challans showing the deposits of security and in the challans it was clearly stated that the payment had been made on account of adjustable security under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act/Central Sales Tax Act. In that context it was held that the amount deposited after the challans were passed by the concerned authority and the same would go to show that the amounts were merely adjustable security so accepted by the Respondents authority. 30. The case of Lalla Mookh Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Cloth & General Mills, Pradip Kumar Sarawgi & Orissa Stores (supra) were pressed into service to butress the argument that the demand for furnishing the security was not proper. In that cases it was held that the competent authority must have materials before it for deriving satisfaction that the security or additional security in case of particular Assessee is essential. As already observed above, in the present proceeding no dispute has been raised as regards the manner and method in which the security and the additional security have been realized from the Petitioners. The issue projected has not been made the grievance in the present proceeding and thus, these cases have got no application to the issue involved in the present case. 31. The case of Satwant Singh Swahny (supra) is simply misplaced. That was a case relating to refusal/withdrawal of passport of the Petitioner. The issue projected has not been made the grievance in the present proceeding and thus, these cases have got no application to the issue involved in the present case. 31. The case of Satwant Singh Swahny (supra) is simply misplaced. That was a case relating to refusal/withdrawal of passport of the Petitioner. It was in that context, the Apex Court held that such action was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and that the expression "personal liberty" in Article 21 includes the right to travel abroad: 32. The case of Bishambhar Daya Ch. Mohan (supra) on which the learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance is also not applicable to the instant case. That was case relating to the scope and extent of executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution. In the instant case the action of the Respondents is guided by the provisions of the Acts and the Rules about which discussions have been made above. 33. The cases of G.S. Dall Flour Mills and Jaginder S. Monga (supra) were pressed into service so as to bring home the point of argument that the executive instruction can supplement a statute or cover the areas to which the statute does not extend their effect, but they cannot run contrary to statutory provisions or whittle down their effect. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the action of the Respondents is based on executive instruction as will be evident from Annexure-VII communication dated 3.3.05 in W.P. (C) No. 1898/05 in which reference has been made to the circular dated 15.10.03 issued by the Commissioner of Taxes. Even if any such circular was issued by the Commissioner of Taxes towards rejection of the prayers of the Petitioners for adjustment of the excess security amount against the further security deposits, same was in conformity with the provisions of the Acts and the Rules and cannot be said to be by way of supplementing the said provisions in any manner. 34. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Counsel for the Respondents placed reliance the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. and National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (supra) to bring home the preliminary objection raised in the counter affidavit relating to maintainability of the writ petition. 34. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Counsel for the Respondents placed reliance the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. and National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (supra) to bring home the preliminary objection raised in the counter affidavit relating to maintainability of the writ petition. In the first case laying down the proposition on the basis of the discussion made in the judgment on the issue relating to refund of excise/custom duty levied on misinterpretation/misapplication/erroneous interpretation of the statutory provision, the Apex Court held that the claim for refund has necessarily to be preferred under and in accordance with the provisions of the respective enactment before the authorities specified thereunder and within the period of limitation prescribed therein. No suit is maintainable in that behalf. The Apex Court observed that while the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and the Apex Court under Article 32 cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of the enactments, they will certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the enactments and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. The power under Article 226 has to be exercised to effectuate the rule of law and not for abrogating it. Same view has been reiterated in the second case also. 35. The above view expressed by the Apex Court has been reiterated in the case of Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd. (supra) holding that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot give direction for refund in disregard of the provision contained in the Central Excise and Salt Act. In the instant case also in the event of granting the prayers made in the writ petition, same will amount to granting the prayers for refund without there being any order of refund by the competent authority which is required to be carried out by the competent authority empowered under the Acts and the Rules. 36. The case of K.K. Bhuyan (supra) was pressed into service to remind this Court that the writ court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 cannot depart from the law and enter into the area of benevolence. 36. The case of K.K. Bhuyan (supra) was pressed into service to remind this Court that the writ court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 cannot depart from the law and enter into the area of benevolence. In the said case, the well known principle of law that even if two view are possible, it cannot be said that a view accepted by the competent authorities is erroneous and that the other view should have been accepted by it, was reiterated. 37. As discussed above, the Petitioners have not questioned the manner and method in which security and the additional security have been realized from the Petitioners and/or are being realized by the Respondents. They have all along made such deposits with the Respondents. Now this batch of writ petitions has been filed claiming the only relief that the excess security deposits lying with the Respondents be treated as the additional security required for the purpose of their further transaction and to issue/counter sign road challans on that basis permitting movement of trucks case along coal. 38. Each and every security deposits were made by the Petitioners in respect of a particular transaction. If any excess amount was paid or is lying with the Respondents after making adjustment against payable tax and other dues, the Petitioners can very well invoke the inbuilt provisions under the Acts and the Rules to get refund of the same along with the interest if admissible to them. In absence of any provisions in the Acts and the Rules, they cannot make a demand for adjustment of such excess amount lying with the Respondents in respect of their future transactions and that too without there being any order of refund. 39. Each transaction is independent to one Anr.. In every transaction, the Petitioners are bound to follow the procedure and they cannot fall back on the earlier transactions so as to claim that the excess security lying with the Respondents in respect of those transactions be taken as the security in respect of the future transactions. Even if there is any excess security lying with the Respondents, the Petitioners will have to follow the procedure laid in the Acts and the Rules to get refund of the same or to make adjustment of the same against future dues as envisaged under Rule 36(6) of the Rules. 40. Even if there is any excess security lying with the Respondents, the Petitioners will have to follow the procedure laid in the Acts and the Rules to get refund of the same or to make adjustment of the same against future dues as envisaged under Rule 36(6) of the Rules. 40. If the contention of the Petitioners that the refund envisaged under the Acts and the Rules is only in respect of the excess tax paid or realization of penalty, interest etc. and that the security and/or additional security does not come within the purview of tax so as to claim refund is to be accepted, does it mean that the Petitioners are not entitled to get refund of the excess additional security. There is no dispute that the additional security demanded from the Petitioners is for the purpose of adjustment of their liabilities for payment of tax. In fact, tax payable by the Petitioners on such transactions are realized and adjusted from the additional security deposits and after such realization/adjustment, if any excess security deposits are lying with the Respondents, such amount is to be claimed by the Petitioners by way of refund along with the admissible interest as envisaged under the provisions of the Acts and the Rules. The procedure envisaged under the provisions of the Acts and the Rules will have to be followed and the Petitioners cannot exclude the said excess amount from the purview of tax/penalty/interest etc. so as to claim that such additional security does not come within the purview of refund and that such additional security will have to be adjusted against the future additional security. If this is allowed same will be contrary to the provisions of the Acts and the Rules. 41. There is Anr. aspect of the matter. As has been noticed above, until there is an order of refund passed by the competent authorities on the basis of the claim for refund made by the Petitioners, there cannot be any question of adjustment of excess security deposits. The order of refund will have to be passed upon scrutiny of the available materials as per the procedure laid down in the Acts and the Rules. The order of refund will have to be passed upon scrutiny of the available materials as per the procedure laid down in the Acts and the Rules. The matter will attain its finality only with the order of refund passed by the competent authority of the Department and it will be open for the Petitioners either to accept the refund of the excess amount or to make a prayer for adjustment of such amounts against the future dues. Till such time, the Petitioners cannot claim the excess amount lying with the Respondents to be adjusted against their future liability for additional security. Such adjustment as has been prayed for by the Petitioners, will require accounting and the same cannot be done instantaneously keeping tracks of each and every transactions/transportations of the Petitioners which might take through different routes. If the Petitioners are entitled to get refund of the excess amount, the proper remedy for them is to get the same as per the procedure laid down in the Acts and the Rules. They cannot make a demand of something which is not envisaged under the Acts and the Rules. 42. In view of the aforesaid discussions, reasons and conclusions, I am of the considered opinion that the relief prayed for by the Petitioners in this batch of writ petition cannot be granted. There being no illegality on the part of the Respondents in demanding additional security towards issuance/counter singing the road challans, the challenge made in all the writ petitions merit dismissal. Accordingly all the writ petitions stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The interim orders passed in each of the writ petitions stand vacated. 43. The writ petitions are dismissed.