1988 (3) TMI 428 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods at check-post due to alleged defects in the way-bill and evasion of tax.
2. Justification of Sales Tax Officer's actions in demanding amounts and detaining goods.
3. Assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the Government company.
4. Allegations of tax evasion and liability on the petitioner and the Government company.
5. Validity of the notice in form No. VI-B and subsequent actions based on it.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing alloy steel products, imported carbon steel melting scrap through a Government company for its manufacturing process. Upon transportation of goods to Bihar, a Sales Tax Officer at a check-post found defects in the way-bill and alleged tax evasion. The officer demanded rectification or payment of Rs. 1,000, which the petitioner contested, claiming the transaction was in the course of import and not subject to tax under the Constitution. The Sales Tax Officer's actions were challenged, citing lack of consideration of explanations and unjustified detention of goods (Para. 3-8).

The petitioner argued that the defects in the way-bill were minor, and the Sales Tax Officer's focus on tax evasion was unwarranted. The Government company, as the potential seller, disputed its liability, and the petitioner, as a purchaser, was not liable for tax evasion. The court noted that the liability for tax on such goods lies with the seller, and in this case, no evasion was evident on the petitioner's part (Para. 13-14).

The court emphasized that the matter was subject to assessment proceedings, and the Sales Tax Officer's actions lacked justification. It concluded that the notice and subsequent actions based on it were unjustified, quashing them and directing parties to bear their own costs. Additionally, the judgment highlighted the availability of alternative remedies and urged the Sales Tax Officer to independently assess the nature of the transaction (Para. 15, K.P. MOHAPATRA, J.).

In summary, the court allowed the writ application, finding the detention of goods unjustified and quashing the notice and subsequent actions. The judgment stressed the need for independent assessment by the Sales Tax Officer and highlighted the ongoing assessment proceedings against the petitioner and the Government company.