Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 499 - TRIPURA HIGH COURTUndervaluation of goods Seizure Petition was filed against seizure of undervalued goods, it was found that entire seized goods were auctioned and sold in public auction Whether order of seizure was proper Held that:- after perusal of records, manner in which goods were seized and sold were highly improper power to seize was granted only when goods were without documents or were not supported by documents In present case documents were there admittedly, documents were not forged but according to State, value of goods given in documents was incorrect Officer did not at all consider fact that petitioner was manufacturer of goods and this was in sense case of stock transfer Seizure of goods was penal action and normally seizure should only be done where goods were not accompanied by any document or documents on face of it were forged Where only difference was with regard to value of goods, officer should not normally seize goods but should have directed driver not to sell them till verification of price was made Therefore action of seizure was based on no evidence and was totally illegal. Auction of Seized goods Whether seized goods were liable to be auctioned Held that:- Rules of natural justice says that action which affects rights of any party cannot be taken unless notice has been issued to said party Therefore, before selling goods, officer-in- charge of check-post must issue notice to consignor or consignee Though Act and Rules do not provide for issuance of notice(s), but no penal action can be taken without notice to affected party Rule 71(5) clearly lays down that auction has to be conducted by Superintendent with previous sanction of Commissioner From records we could not find any material to indicate that sanction of Commissioner had been taken before putting goods to auction Therefore, auction was conducted without any proper sanction. Calculation of Reserve price Auction Whether amount, at which authorities auction seized goods, was justifiable Held that:- According to petitioner, value of goods was ₹ 4,80,000 whereas officer-in-charge assessed value at ₹ 11,52,000 Formula that was used to discern reserve price was fixed by fixing three times rate of tax payable on price estimated by officer seizing goods plus five per cent. for overhead cost Finally goods amounting to ₹ 11,52,000 as per officials were auctioned for paltry amount of ₹ 1,76,000 Present auction, does not comply either with provisions of Act or Rules or even with any reasonable view which could be taken in such matter Rate at which oil was auctioned indicates that officer was not aware of market value of oil Therefore auction was totally arbitrary and unconscionable, liable to be struck down Petitioner was deprived of his goods and was paid nothing Therefore, State directed to pay to petitioner sum of ₹ 4,80,000 which was declared value of goods along with interest at 12 per cent after deducting amount of tax payable Decided in favour of Petitioner.
|