JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR J. - Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 ("the Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated November 11, 1998 relating to the assessment year 1997-98 under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Dealer/opposite party ("the dealer") was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of foodgrains, etc. With the view that the dealer was involved in evasion of tax, vide order, the assessing authority required the dealer to furnish additional security at Rs. 6 lakhs in the form of bank guarantee by March 6, 1998. When such additional security could not be furnished, a notice under section 8A(1B) of the Act was issued for cancellation of the registration. In pursuance of the said notice, dealer appeared before the assessing authority and sought time, which was allowed and vide order dated March 6, 1998 cancelled the registration. First appeal filed by the dealer was rejected. Dealer filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been allowed by the impugned order. The Tribunal held that the additional security was demanded on March 18, 1998. According to the Tribunal, under section 8A(1B) of the Act order of cancellation could be passed only after expiry of three months while the order of cancellation was passed on March 6, 1998. Hence, the order of cancellation of registration has been held unjustified. Heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. Despite the service of notice, no one appears on behalf of dealer/opposite party. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that section 8A(1B) provides that if the dealer failed to pay the tax, penalty or other dues within three months of the date, such tax, penalty or other dues became payable the registration can be cancelled by the authority. He submitted that the security demanded under section 8C does not come within the purview of tax, penalty or other dues, thus, the period of three months is not applicable to the additional security. He submitted that when the dealer was required to furnish additional security by March 6, 1998 and on non-furnishing of security, registration could be cancelled immediately thereafter under any sufficient reason. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous. I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. Section 8A(1B) reads as follows : Section 8A(1B). He submitted that when the dealer was required to furnish additional security by March 6, 1998 and on non-furnishing of security, registration could be cancelled immediately thereafter under any sufficient reason. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous. I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. Section 8A(1B) reads as follows : Section 8A(1B). A certificate of registration, granted under this section to a dealer, may be cancelled by the authority empowered to grant it, either on the application of the dealer or on its own motion, where such authority is satisfied that the dealer to whom it was granted has ceased to carry on business or has ceased to be subject to registration or has failed to pay the tax, penalty or other dues within three months of the date such tax, penalty or other dues became payable or where for any other sufficient reasons such authority considers it proper so to do. Explanation. - The dissolution of a firm or association of persons or partition of Joint Hindu Family or transfer by a dealer of his business shall be deemed to be cessation of business within the meaning of this sub-section. Under section 8A(1B) registration can be cancelled for any other sufficient reason. Non-furnishing of additional security within the time specified may be one of the reasons on which registration can be cancelled. Additional security does not come within the purview of tax, penalty or other dues, therefore, period of three months is not applicable to the additional security. The assessing authority vide its order required the dealer to furnish the additional security within the specified time, therefore, on the expiry of that time on non-furnishing of additional security, the assessing authority can cancel the registration. The view taken by the Tribunal that the registration could be cancelled only after expiry of three months is not sustainable and the order of Tribunal is accordingly liable to be set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal afresh on merits. In the result, revision is allowed. The order of Tribunal dated November 11, 1998 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh on merits.