WP(C) 241/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Both these writ petitions have been heard together inasmuch as these two writ pe titions involved identical facts and have given raise to common question of law. Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. D. Saiki a, learned Standing counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The contention of the writ petitioners is that the petitioners, in both these wr it petitions, are registered dealers carrying on business of, amongst others, sa le and supply of jute. The grievance of the petitioners is, in brief, that their vehicles, carrying jute, are not allowed to go beyond the territorial limits of Boxihart check-post by the respondents without payment of security deposit inas much as the departmental personnel demand security for each and every truck cros sing the check-post barrier. The fact that such a demand for security deposit ha s been insisted on various check post barriers, at Boxihart, is not in dispute n or is it in dispute that the security, so demanded, is in addition to the securi ty, which the petitioners have already deposited at the time of their registrati on, as dealers, under the Central Sales Act,1956. The power of the respondents/authorities concerned to demand additional security is traceable to Section 7 (3A) of the Central Tax Act, 1956. Without entering i nto the merit of the question, as to whether the grievances of the petitioners, in the present case, that additional security could not have been demanded from them, what may be pointed out is that Section 7 (3 B) of the Central Tax Act, 19 56, makes it mandatory that order and/or direction, warranting additional securi ty, shall precede issuance of notice to the dealer asking the dealer to show cau se, if any, as to why additional security for the reasons, which may be mentione d in the notice of show cause, shall not directed to be paid by the dealer. In the two cases, at hand, no such notice(s), as contemplated in Section 7(3B) o f the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was, admittedly, issued to the petitioners. I n such circumstances, the demand of additional security at the check-posts, in t he manner, as have been done in these cases, is not sustainable in law. In view of the above, both these writ petitions are disposed of with direction t o the respondents not to demand any additional security, at their check posts, e xcept after complying with the provisions of Section 7(3A) read with Section 7 ( 3B) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Before parting with these writ petitions, it may be pointed out that since the d emand for additional security has been made without giving any notice, as requir ed by Sub-Section (3B) of Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, this Cou rt expresses no view with regard to the question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, such a demand for additional security, as hav e been made in the present cases, could or could not have been made. It is, howe ver, made clear that, this Court expresses no opinion on the sustainability of t he allegations made by the petitioners in support of their cases, and/or the co unter-allegations made by the respondents in support of their demand for additio nal security. The parties shall, therefore, remain at liberty to take recourse t o such provisions of law, as may be permissible, and they shall also have the li berty to raise their grievances, as have been raised in these cases, and/or to r eceive the relief(s), as they may be entitled to.