9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent by rail from Hirni Raipur, Chhatisgarh to Kharagpur, West Bengal through RR No. FP157761-800 dated April 2, 2006. The consignment reached the destination at Kalaikunda on April 4, 2006 at 6 a. m. but the transfer memo and the RR allegedly could not reach the petitioner before the arrival of the rake at Kalaikunda and for that the way-bill could not be produced to get endorsed by the officer of Kharagpur Range before unloading and shifting of the goods completed on the explanation of saving heavy penalty. After taking delivery of the consignment the petitioner produced the way-bill with original stock transfer memo before respondent No. 1, i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kharagpur range, who refused to endorse the way-bill as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and irregularity and those are, therefore, liable to be set aside. In support of the above contention the learned Advocate has cited and relied on the decision dated July 17, 2007 passed by this Tribunal in case No. RN-149 of 2007 (Century Cement v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kharagpur Range [2009] 26 VST 463). Mr. B. Majumdar, learned State Representative representing the respondents, submits to refute the above contention for the petitioner that taking delivery of the consigned goods before endorsement of the way-bill by respondent No. 1 is itself a violation of the provisions of the VAT Act and Rules and hence the proceeding of imposition of penalty and the revisional order suffer from no illegality and/or irregularity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case therein was not the same and identical to this case though both the cases relate to the same provision of law and the rules. On such different fact the Tribunal had been pleased to observe that the practice of presenting way-bill after taking delivery of the consigned goods was allowed to be followed by the sales tax authorities and in view of that such irregularity in practice on the part of the consignee was exonerated. But here in this case no repeated indulgence of production of document after delivery of goods was given by the sales tax authority to the petitioner and hence the question of sudden strictness to the rules does not and cannot arise at all. It is further observed therein that mere infringement of the rule of pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
