2005 (6) TMI 534 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to seizure made by Assistant Sales Tax Officer at Duburdih Check-post under West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenges the seizure of goods by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer at Duburdih Check-post, claiming that the interception was illegal as it was done by a patrolman who, according to the rules, did not have the power or jurisdiction for such interception. The petitioner argues that all subsequent acts stemming from the illegal interception are also illegal. Additionally, there is a discrepancy in the valuation as found in the invoice and the way-bill, attributed to an error by the petitioner's agent. The seizure was purportedly made under section 77(1) of the VAT Act, 2003, instead of the correct section 76(1.

The State Representative contends that under rule 120 of the VAT Rules, a patrolman is indeed empowered to intercept, detain, and search any vehicle, rendering the jurisdiction argument raised by the petitioner invalid. Furthermore, the State Representative points out that the petitioner is obligated, as per the explanation to section 86 of the VAT Act, to exhaust all statutory remedies before approaching the Tribunal directly. The agent's error in filling the way-bill is also highlighted, emphasizing that the dealer or consignee should have filled and signed the document, not an agent.

After hearing both parties and considering the statutory provisions, the Tribunal directs the petitioner to seek remedy from the authority above the officer who issued the seizure order within seven days. The statutory authority is tasked with examining the legality of the seizure and penalty proceedings after hearing the petitioner. Pending the resolution of the application before the statutory authority, the seized goods are to be released upon furnishing security of Rs. 50,000, with Rs. 25,000 in cash and Rs. 25,000 as a bank guarantee, subject to renewal as required by law. The security provided will be subject to the final order of the statutory authority.

In conclusion, the petition is disposed of without any order as to costs, with the petitioner instructed to follow the prescribed procedure for seeking remedy regarding the seizure of goods.