2002 (3) TMI 901 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of goods from the petitioner's godown.
2. Application of sections 68, 69, and 70 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.
3. Interpretation and applicability of rule 212 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995.
4. Jurisdiction of the respondent to seize goods on grounds of under-invoicing.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Seizure of Goods from the Petitioner's Godown:

The petitioner challenged the seizure of goods from his godown on the grounds that the seizure was illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent. The petitioner argued that the goods were legally brought and stored, supported by genuine documents, and that there was no case of under-invoicing. The Tribunal, however, found that the seizure was valid and in accordance with the law.

2. Application of Sections 68, 69, and 70 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994:

The petitioner argued that sections 68 and 69 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, read with sub-rule (10) of rule 212 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, did not authorize the respondent to seize goods stored in a godown on the grounds of under-invoicing. The Tribunal, however, held that there was due compliance with the provisions of sections 69 and 70 of the Act in the matter of search and seizure of the goods. Section 69(b) specifically empowers the Commissioner or authorized officers to search any warehouse or place where goods transported in contravention of section 68 have been stored.

3. Interpretation and Applicability of Rule 212 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995:

The petitioner contended that sub-rules (9) and (10) of rule 212 applied only to goods being transported on a vehicle and not to goods stored in a godown. The Tribunal, however, interpreted that the words "to proceed under section 69 outside the check-post" in sub-rule (9) were wide enough to include warehouses or godowns. Sub-rule (9) allows verification of the correctness of way bills and other documents relating to the consignment of goods being transported, which includes goods stored in a godown if they were transported in contravention of the Act.

4. Jurisdiction of the Respondent to Seize Goods on Grounds of Under-Invoicing:

The petitioner argued that the respondent acted beyond his jurisdiction in seizing the goods under section 70(2) of the Act. The Tribunal, however, held that the respondent had the right to verify the correctness of the description, weight, value, etc., of the goods with reference to the way bills. The Tribunal concluded that the action taken by the respondent was warranted under the law and that there was no merit in the petitioner's application.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the seizure of goods was valid and in accordance with the law. The Tribunal found that the relevant provisions of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, and the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, were duly complied with in the matter of search and seizure of the goods. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's arguments and upheld the respondent's actions as legally justified.

Post-Judgment:

The petitioner's request for a stay of the order was also rejected by the Tribunal.