1998 (3) TMI 660 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of seizure of consignments of spices
2. Refund of penalty amount deposited by the applicant
3. Allegations of coercion in obtaining declaration from the driver
4. Reduction of penalty amount by different authorities
5. Consideration of facts and circumstances by the authorities

Validity of Seizure of Consignments:
The applicant, a partnership-firm engaged in the business of re-selling spices, transported two consignments of jeera and souff. The consignments were seized by respondent No. 1 on May 9, 1997, and a penalty of Rs. 90,000 was imposed. The respondent's case was that the driver did not possess the necessary sales tax permits, and the vehicle was intercepted without relevant documents. The respondent argued that the seizure was valid, and no coercion was involved in obtaining the driver's declaration.

Refund of Penalty Amount:
The applicant sought a refund of the penalty amount deposited. The penalty was initially set at Rs. 3,39,300, reduced to Rs. 1,05,000 by respondent No. 2, and further reduced to Rs. 90,000 by respondent No. 3. The authorities considered the facts and circumstances before modifying the penalty amount, ultimately dismissing the applicant's plea for a refund.

Allegations of Coercion:
The applicant alleged that the declaration obtained from the driver was under coercion. However, the authorities found no evidence of coercion and deemed the driver's statement to be voluntary. The driver's declaration did not mention the presence of a helper, contradicting the applicant's claims.

Reduction of Penalty Amount:
Respondent No. 2 and No. 3 reduced the penalty amount after considering the salable value declared in the permits. They took a lenient view due to the nature of the offense being the first one. The reduction in penalty was not deemed mechanical, as the authorities evaluated the facts and submissions before making their decisions.

Consideration of Facts and Circumstances:
The Tribunal analyzed the chain of events leading to the seizure and penalty imposition. The authorities found that the driver attempted to flee without producing documents, supporting the validity of the seizure. The applicant's arguments regarding the sales tax permits and alleged coercion were dismissed, upholding the lawfulness of the seizure and penalty orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the seizure and penalty orders, finding no deficiencies in the authorities' actions. The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

[End of Summary]