9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt, "ASTO/ GPCP") to allow "reasonable time to produce copy of the tax invoice". The driver of the vehicle, as claimed in the petition, contacted the petitioner and requested him to send the relevant invoice and was assured that the tax invoice could be made available to him by the next day, i.e., on May 29, 2008. The driver accordingly communicated it to the Sales Tax Officer, Siliguri Range (in short, "STO/SGR") and prayed for time, at least up to the evening of May 29, 2008, so that the tax invoice could be produced for verification. Such prayer, as submitted, was entertained by the STO/GPCP. On May 29, 2008, at about 11 am, original as well as duplicate copy of the tax invoice was made available to the driver for production before the STO/ SGR. But even on production of the original as well as the duplicate copy of the tax invoice those were not accepted and the driver of the vehicle was informed that the disputed consignment had already been seized under section 76 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the VAT Act ") for contravention of the provision of section 73 of the VAT Act. Seizure receipt vide seizure case No. GPCP/65/08-09 dated May 29, 2008 was han ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently it was changed to May 29, 2008. Even the date of passing the final order was changed from May 29, 2008 to May 30, 2008. As per submission of the learned Advocate, this was done purely to show that the driver of the vehicle was given due opportunity to produce the tax invoice. Section 76 of the VAT Act provides that if the authority concerned has reason to believe that any goods are being transported in contravention of provision of section 73 or section 81, the vehicle should be detained for a period not exceeding forty-eight hours and if the person bringing or importing or receiving or carrying such goods fails to furnish requisite documents or particulars even within forty-eight hours, the goods may be seized for violation of provision of section 73 or section 81 of the VAT Act. But in this particular case, the vehicle was detained on May 28, 2008 at 6.05 am whereas the seizure, even assuming, was made on May 29, 2008, the petitioner was not provided statutory fortyeight hours time for production of relevant records. This being against the statutory provision, learned Advocate submitted that the seizure was invalid and accordingly, all consequential actions taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein only the quantity and nature of the goods. There is hardly any scope to note the value of the goods in the challan itself. Therefore, absence of noting the value in the challan did not make any material difference with regard to the authenticity of the movement of the goods. Delivery challan cannot be equated with an invoice. Generally, invoices are raised on the basis of receipted challan copy and therein the value of the goods is specifically mentioned. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, learned advocate prayed for release of the consignment lying seized with the authorities of GPCP without payment of any penalty. Shri T.N. Banerjee, learned State Representative, appearing on behalf of the respondent-authorities, contended that there was contravention of the provision of rule 107 of the VAT Rules. As per provision of rule 107, it is obligatory on the part of every dealer, casual dealer or any other person to make over a forwarding note or challan, in duplicate, along with the transporter's copy and extra copy of tax invoice, or two copies of invoice or bill or cash memorandum, as the case may be, issued by the selling dealer to the driver or person in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentative submitted that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he had no intention to evade payment of taxes cannot be accepted as correct. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records. It appears from the records produced that the vehicle reported at GPCP on May 28, 2008 and the goods were seized on May 29, 2008, though disputed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the date of order was changed subsequently from May 28, 2008 to May 29, 2008. As per prescription under rule 107(1) of the VAT Rules, it was obligatory on the part of the driver of the vehicle to produce the tax invoice on demand. Sub-rule (2) of rule 107 of the VAT Rules also prescribes that a driver should carry with him the documents referred to in sub-rule (1) and other documents of like nature. These two sub-rules should be read simultaneously and in this case, we are of the view that there was contravention of the provision of rule 107 of the VAT Rules. Therefore, we hold the seizure to be a valid one. Regarding imposition of penalty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that sufficient time was not allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
