TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 750 tins of palmolin oil by vehicle No. WB-23/2845 to Bankura for delivery to three different dealers (M/s. Ganapati Rai Omprakash, M/s. Shyam Sundar Dutta and M/s. Anand Traders) there 250 tins to each party. When the vehicle reached Durgapur it was intercepted and brought to Durgapur Range Office for verification of documents lying with the driver who had with him supporting road challan and declaration under rule 214B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. But even then the goods were seized on October 23, 2000 before expiry of 48 hours on the flimsy ground that the supporting challan was made on petitioner's letterhead and supporting declarations contained no serial number. The driver duly got copy of the seizure receipt and also notice dated October 23, 2000 in form 44. The penalty proceeding was heard on that very date by respondent No. 2 who after making arbitrary valuation imposed a penalty of Rs. 76,500. During penalty proceeding, the petitioner No. 2 one of the partners of petitioner No. 1 was present with the driver and produced three invoices raised against the three recipients of disputed goods and also invoice dated October 11, 2000 received from M/s. M.K. Enterp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch is within a period of 48 hours of detention of the vehicle. It has been contended by Sri S.N. Bose, learned advocate for the petitioner, that the 48 hours time in this case has not been given to the petitioner to furnish particulars or documents and that as such provision of section 70 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 has been violated. This has been contradicted by Sri J.K. Goswami, learned State Representative, who submits that seizure can be made any time within 48 hours if authority is so satisfied. As we go through the provision of section 70 we find that the outer-limit of 48 hours only has been fixed from the time of detention. So the submission of learned Advocate for the petitioner in this respect has no force. The report before the seizure is made an annexure (page 9) to the affidavit-in-opposition and the detention order is at page 8 thereof. On a perusal of the report prior to the seizure, it appears that the Commercial Tax Officer, Durgapur Range, found that the alleged road challan of the petitioner bears no serial number and is on a private letterhead and the required declaration form that was filled up also contained no serial number. As those were cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In no case it can be equated with one's private letterhead. Concept of challan and concept of letterhead do not conform to each other. So he submits that what the Commercial Tax Officer did in the situation as above is what is prescribed by the said rule and section 68 of the Act. Against such submission of learned State Representative, Sri S.N. Bose refers us to the proviso clause to sub-rule (3) of rule 214B. His submission is that on verification everything was found all right by the Commercial Tax Officer except mainly the declaration over a negligible portion of it. As the challan was there showing despatch of goods from one place in West Bengal to another place in West Bengal, the authority as per proviso clause on perusal of document should have been satisfied and should have dispensed with the requirement of declaration and could let the vehicle move after countersigning with official seal on the documents presented to it. It is contended by the learned State Representative that the benefit of the proviso clause cannot be availed of by the petitioner as of right particularly when the petitioner has furnished defective and doubtful documents not warranted by provisions of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs, cuttings or omission should not be taken note of. But we have already noted that the requirements of the provisions of the Act and the Rules have not been fulfilled on vital matters and not on minor or unimportant aspect. 8.. It has been next submitted that not only the driver of the petitioner, but also petitioner No. 2-one of the partners of petitioner No. 1 was physically present before respondent No. 2 in the hearing of penalty matter on October 23, 2000 which hearing admittedly was held promptly as per the request of the driver. The presence of the partner there on that date has not been noted and the petitioner wants to say that documents have been filed by him but had not been accepted by respondent No. 2. An affidavit dated October 31, 2000 sworn by Mr. Kesari-one of the partners of petitioner No. 1 has been furnished. He swears his presence on October 23, 2000 before respondent No. 2 with some documents. But the order sheet does not say so. The order sheet only speaks of the presence of the driver without any other document than the documents already furnished. We are unable to put reliance on the affidavit of the partner swearing his presence with documents on that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
