9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inter alia, for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,40,100 accepted by the respondent on the basis of the notice of demand dated March 22, 2000. 2.. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the petitioner is a proprietor and dealing with purchase of various commodities. On or about March, 2000, the petitioner imported weighing about 10,050 kgs. betelnuts at a price of Rs. 60 per kg. against way bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents and to allow the vehicle to pass through the check-post. On March 18, 2000, the respondent No. 2 seized the consignment on the plea that the importation was done with an intention to evade tax. After seizure legal procedures were adopted though not in compliance with the provisions of law under the Sales Tax Act and Rules. Penalty was imposed to the tune of Rs. 1,40,100 assessing the va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e second point of argument is that there is no provision in the Act or Rules to assess the value of the consignment and to fix the rate arbitrarily relying on the notification made in the newspaper. The finding of the C.T.O. and the respondent No. 2 is illegal and liable to be set aside with the direction for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,40,100 realised towards penalty. 4.. On behalf of the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erprises) it is submitted that since the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 authorises a check-post officer to question with reference to the market value of the goods, the action was supported by the decision of the honourable Court. Since there is no clear provision in the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, the C.T.O. or the seizing officer had no authority to verify the particulars of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the principles and rules laid down in the Act. The reference of the provision of rule 212(10) is a sheer mistake which, in any case, does not prejudice the findings made by the C.T.O. assessing the value of the goods and imposing penalty thereof. 7.. We, therefore find no merits in the application. It is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 8.. This application is disposed of accordingly. No or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
