1990 (2) TMI 268 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the application for seizure of goods cases.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the application.
3. Appeal against the order imposing penalty.
4. Similarity in provisions of West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, and Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
5. Disposal of cases based on previous Tribunal judgment.
6. Setting aside the orders directing imposition of penalty.
7. Treatment of deposited amount as security.
8. Reconsideration of seizure and penalty imposition.
9. Disapproval of the form of notices issued.
10. Direction to the Commercial Tax Officer for further proceedings.
11. Notice to applicants for representation at the hearing.
12. Dissemination of judgment to check-posts for guidance.
13. Absence of cost order.

The judgment pertains to two applications, RN-8 of 1990 and RN-9 of 1990, concerning the seizure of goods and penalty imposition under Seizure Case No. 461(41)/ CCP/MN/89-90 and 462(41)/ CCP/MN/89-90. The applications were filed with a delay of 12 days, which was explained and subsequently condoned after both sides consented. The Tribunal considered the merits of the applications, noting their similarity to previous cases under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, and the directions given therein. The State of West Bengal's special leave petition against a previous Tribunal judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The applicants argued for the quashing of the penalty and initiation of fresh proceedings in line with the earlier Tribunal directions, which the State Representative acknowledged due to the similarity of provisions in the Acts.

The Tribunal set aside the orders directing the imposition of penalty and treated the deposited amount as security, directing the concerned Commercial Tax Officer to review the propriety of seizure and penalty imposition based on previous judgments. The Officer was instructed to conclude the proceedings within a month. While the notices issued were not quashed, the Tribunal expressed disapproval of their form, consistent with its earlier judgment. The Commercial Tax Officer was directed to notify the applicants of the hearing date and send copies of the judgment to relevant check-posts for officer guidance. No costs were awarded in the disposition of the applications.

---