Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + AT VAT and Sales Tax - 1999 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1999 (3) TMI 609 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues:
1. Competency of the impugned seizure and penalty imposition by respondent No. 1.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Stone India Ltd., a dealer registered under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, importing cylindrical roller bearings from Singapore. The applicant claimed that despite producing the necessary permit and documents, the goods were seized by respondent No. 1, who alleged a violation of legal provisions. The main issue was whether the seizure and penalty imposition were validly made by respondent No. 1.

The Tribunal analyzed the relevant rules, specifically rule 211 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, which required the production of specific documents for taking delivery of notified goods from an airport. The applicant complied with these formalities by obtaining necessary endorsements before taking possession of the goods. The respondents did not dispute this compliance, indicating that the applicant fulfilled the requirements of rule 211.

The State Representative argued that rule 212 applied, requiring additional actions at the airport check-post. However, the Tribunal clarified that rule 212 did not apply to goods imported through airports, as rule 211 covered such scenarios adequately. The presence of "mens rea" without overt acts constituting an offense would not lead to punishment. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not violate the relevant provisions during the movement of the goods.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application, quashed the seizure of the goods, and canceled the penalty imposition. The order for releasing the seized goods against security was made absolute, with instructions for refunding the security within a specified timeframe. No costs were awarded, and a stay on the operation of the order was granted for four weeks due to the significant revenue involved in the case.

In a concurring opinion, the Technical Member agreed with the decision to allow the application, indicating a unanimous decision by the Tribunal on the matter.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates