1990 (12) TMI 307 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Seizure of vanaspati tins under West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 based on alleged violation of section 6. Justification of seizure based on month and year of manufacture mentioned on the tins. Request for release of seized tins. Penalty proceedings initiated under section 7(2) of the Act. Disposal of the main application and direction for completion of penalty proceedings.

Analysis:
The case involved the seizure of 205 tins of "Utsav" brand vanaspati by the Commercial Tax Officer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, alleging a violation of section 6. The applicant, M/s. Pradip Traders, claimed that the tins were covered by a permit obtained for their importation. The respondents argued that the seized tins bore Batch No. 199 and showed the month and year of manufacture as February, 1990, not aligning with the permit issued earlier. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the seizure-receipts regarding the month and year of manufacture. It declined to accept the State Representative's contention regarding Batch No. 199 signifying the month and year of manufacture without proper evidence in the affidavit-in-opposition.

The Tribunal emphasized that additional materials, like reports not mentioned in the affidavits, cannot supplement a party's case. Consequently, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to conclude that tins with Batch No. 199 impliedly bore the month and year of manufacture as February, 1990. The State Representative mentioned penalty proceedings initiated under section 7(2) of the Act against M/s. Pradip Traders. The applicant's advocate conceded that penalty proceedings could proceed for tins with mentioned manufacturing details but requested release of tins without such details on the seizure receipts.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal decided to quash the seizures of tins from M/s. Pradip Traders and M/s. Bimal Stores due to the absence of manufacturing details in the seizure receipts. However, the respondents were permitted to continue penalty proceedings for the other two seizures. The Tribunal had previously ordered the release of the seized tins upon the applicant depositing security, which was done. The security amount was to remain until the final outcome of the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal directed the contesting respondents to complete the penalty proceedings expeditiously, preferably within three months, and disposed of the main application without costs.