Judgment Prafulla C. Pant C.J. Shri M. Das, advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri K. Khan, Additional Senior Government Advocate, present for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter No. CTAS-5/12/2010/148 dated April 26, 2012 and letter No. CTAS-12/2010/979 dated August 2, 2012, issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, Government of Meghalaya, whereby, the assessing, officers have been directed not to adjust the additional security/penalty/composition money collected at the check-gate on excess load of coal or limestone in all the pending and future assessment. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused papers on record. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in business of wholesale trade of coal and other minerals, who procures coal from various coal miners and other traders in Meghalaya and transports and sells the same to various customers outside the State. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the CST Act") and also under the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner is required to deposit security at Rs. 122 per metric tonne under section 7(3E) of the CST Act, 1956. 5. It is pleaded by the petitioner that the coal trucks are loaded manually or volumetric basis, as such at times when these trucks are weighed at the check-post where the weighbridges are available, actual weight is found more than the permissible limit of nine metric tonne (for two axle vehicles) and 19 metric tonnes (for three axle vehicles). On such excess load, additional security is required to be paid by the dealer under section 7(3E) of the CST Act, 1956. It is pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that earlier in the light of the letter No. CTAS-2/2010/1285 dated September 14, 2010 (copy annexure 3 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 4 (Superintendent of Taxes, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar) read with letter No. CTAS-54/93/Pt/426 dated June 3, 2010 [copy annexure 4 to the writ petition) issued by the said authority, the additional security paid on excess load of coal was allowed to be adjusted against the tax payable by the dealer. It is further stated in the writ petition that the impugned letter No. CTAS-5/12/2010/148 dated April 26, 2012 (copy annexure 5 to the writ petition) and one dated August 2, 2012 (annexure 6 to the writ petition) have been issued by the respondent No. 4 depriving the petitioner of the adjustment of additional security to which he is entitled. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be subjected to double taxation. Challenging the annexure 6 to the writ petition, which is letter No. CTAS-12/2010/979 dated August 2, 2012 whereby, the letter dated June 3, 2010 (annexure 4 to the writ petition) has been cancelled, it is argued that the payment made by the petitioner at the check-post in respect of the excess load as additional security cannot be left unaccounted. 7. The Standing Counsel for the respondents drew attention of this court to para 7 of the counter-affidavit and submitted that transportation of excess load of coal in the inter-State transaction is an offence punishable under sections 76 and 90 of the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that under section 9 of the CST Act, 1956 read with Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the respondent-authorities have every right to assess/re-assess/collect and enforce the payment of tax. 8. However, what is not answered by the respondents is that how additional security paid by the dealers at the check-posts in respect of excess coal loaded/transported can be left accounted. It is admitted fact that the additional security as mentioned above is realized by the tax authorities at the check-posts. This court is of the considered view that if the dealer is made to pay the entire tax and penalty as per assessment finally made, if the security is not adjusted, the same is either liable to be refunded or to be carried forward for the next assessment year. 9. This court is of the considered view that if the dealer is made to pay the entire tax and penalty as per assessment finally made, if the security is not adjusted, the same is either liable to be refunded or to be carried forward for the next assessment year. 9. In the above circumstances and having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is deserved to be disposed of with the observation that if the assessee is made to pay separately entire tax/penalty/composition money in terms-of the final assessment without adjusting the additional security paid by the petitioner at the check-post on the excess load of coal, such security shall be refundable to the concerned dealer under section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956 as amended by Act 61 of 1972 read with section 49 of the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of.