TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent a godown at 8A, Shamsul Huda Road for storing tanned leather for the purpose of sale in and outside the State of West Bengal. The fact of renting the godown was duly communicated to the respondent No. 3 who was requested to amend the registration certificate by inserting the address of the godown in the "warehouse" column. 3.. On June 25, 1996 about 15 persons alleged to be attached with the Bureau of Investigation entered into the godown of the applicant at 8A, Shamsul Huda Road, Calcutta and started taking stock of the goods stored at the said godown. They directed an employee of the applicant who was present at that time at the said godown to call the applicant and explain the stock of goods stored at the said godown. After this information was received by him, the applicant came to the same godown. Four of the persons directed him to take them to his office situated at 25A, Beniapukur Lane, Calcutta-40. The applicant took them to the said office where he was directed to produce the purchase bills in respect of the goods stored at the same godown. The applicant produced all the purchase bills and sale bills and claimed that the goods stored at the godown would tally with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the respondent No. 1 to form an opinion or to believe that the applicant had imported the goods from outside the State of West Bengal. Verification of the purchase bills and sale bills and comparison of the same with the stock of goods stored at the godown could not give rise to any opinion that the applicant had imported the goods from outside the State of West Bengal. The applicant has produced purchase bills before the respondent No. 2 and contended that the said purchase bills had been issued by genuine dealers. He requested the respondent No. 2 to verify the genuineness of the purchase and sales bills. The respondent No. 2 did not dispute the genuineness of the purchase and sales bills, but raised a peculiar question to the effect that the goods purchased against the purchase bills were not those which were stored at the godown. Once the applicant has produced the purchase and sales bills, the onus lies on the respondent No. 2 to show that the goods stored at the godown were not the goods which were purchased against the purchase bills. Mere allegation cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8.. The applicant further states that the respondent No. 1 has no authority, rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e failed to avail of. 11.. It is categorically asserted that no purchase bill, sale bill or stock register relating to goods seized by the respondent No. 1 was produced before the respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2 before, at the time of, or subsequent to, the seizure. There was some clerical mistake in recording the units of measurement which was detected by the respondent No. 1 and was immediately brought to the notice of the applicant and thereafter such mistake was rectified. 12.. It is denied that the applicant or any of his representative appeared before the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, respondent No. 1, or any other respondent authorities. None appeared before the respondent No. 2 on July 2, 1996. However, the advocate of the applicant appeared before the respondent No. 2 on July 3, 1996. The books of accounts and documents produced by the applicant were duly examined by the respondent No. 2. Those documents could not at all correlate the purchase or stock of seized goods with books of accounts maintained and produced by the applicant. The important question before the respondent authority is to establish the identity of the goods seized by the respondent No. 1. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en imported into the State of West Bengal from outside West Bengal. 15.. Mr. Chakraborty further submitted that the action of the respondent No. 1 in seizing the goods from the warehouse was totally beyond his authority and jurisdiction. In this connection, he referred to sections 69 and 70 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. For interception, detention and search of road vehicle and search of warehouse, etc., under section 69, the authority is vested only in "the Commissioner, an Additional Commissioner, or any person appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3 to assist the Commissioner". However, this authority is "subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed". The restrictions as may be prescribed referred to in section 69 has been clearly spelt out in rule 208 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. Rule 208 is as follows: "No search of any road vehicle or warehouse, or seizure of goods transported by such vehicle or stored in such warehouse, at any place other than a place notified under sub-section (1) of section 68, shall be made by any person, appointed to assist the Commissioner, not below the rank of a Commercial Tax Officer." He also referred in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No. 1 was an Inspector of Commercial Taxes attached to the Bureau of Investigation. Under section 7(9) of the 1994 Act any person appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3 to assist the Commissioner when appointed in the Bureau shall be competent to exercise all the powers which are exercisable by such person under this Act and the Rules made thereunder. Under section 3(4) of the 1994 Act, the Commissioner can delegate any of his powers excepting those under section 17(4) and section 88(12) to any person appointed under section 3(1). He further argued that section 69 categorically refers to any person appointed under subsection (1) of section 3 to assist the Commissioner as having the power to intercept, detain and search road vehicles, and search warehouses. Section 70(1) again refers to any person appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3 to assist the Commissioner and therefore the authority given by the statute cannot be reduced by the Rules. 18.. We feel that the submission of the learned State Representative is not a reasonable one. Section 69 does refer to "any person appointed under sub-section (1) of section 3 to assist the Commissioner ". But it is clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
