Madhava Reddy, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. He calls in question the notice of the Commercial Tax Officer (I), Visakhapatnam, RC. No. VVVI. 8648(GST) dated 16th February, 1982 calling upon him to make an additional security deposit of Rs. 18,000 on pain of the registration certificate granted to him under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act being cancelled. The facts alleged in the notice are that the petitioner, an assessee on the rolls of the Commercial Tax Officer (I), Visakhapatnam, is not submitting his returns regularly. Up to the date of the notice, even as per the returns filed by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 30,634 is due and payable by the petitioner in respect of his turnover relating to the months of October and November, 1980. He has not submitted the monthly returns for the months of October, November and December, 1981. Other returns he has submitted belatedly. From the record of his previous returns the average tax payable by the petitioner worked out to Rs. 18,000 per month. In view of this, the petitioner was required to pay further security deposit of Rs. 18,000.
2. The facts mentioned in the show cause notice are not disputed. The only question is whether, in the circumstances, the respondent has jurisdiction to require the petitioner to pay an additional security deposit of Rs. 18.000 and in exercising that jurisdiction he has exercised his discretion properly. Rule 29(7) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules empowers the registering authority to demand additional security from the dealers. That rule reads as follows :
'The registering authority may require an applicant for registration or a registered dealer to deposit as security in the Government Treasury for proper payment of tax and surcharge an amount not exceeding one half of the tax and surcharge payable on the turnover of the dealer for the year as estimated by the registering authority.'
3. In fact having regard to the default committed by the petitioner, the registering authority was competent to demand security deposit of an amount not exceeding one-half of the tax payable on the turnover of the dealer for the year.
4. In the instant case, we cannot say that the registering authority has exercised the discretion in exercise of the undoubted jurisdiction vested in it under sub-rule (7) of rule 29 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules arbitrarily when it has merely directed the petitioner to pay security deposit of Rs. 18,000 which is the average amount of tax paid by him per month in the previous years.
5. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted time till 31st of March, 1982 to make the security deposit of Rs. 18,000 required of him and until then, the registration certificate already granted shall not be cancelled. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.
6. Writ petition dismissed.