2000 (2) TMI 816 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of seizure of computer parts imported by the applicant.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 71 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.
3. Validity of reliance on newspaper reports regarding non-application of penal provisions.
4. Compliance with statutory provisions for way bills.
5. Estoppel against statutory provisions based on alleged assurances by the Finance Minister.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Seizure of Computer Parts Imported by the Applicant:
The applicant, a registered dealer under the 1994 Act, imported computer parts from Taipei, Taiwan. The goods were released by the check-post authorities at Calcutta Airport without a way bill, allegedly based on newspaper reports suggesting that the Finance Minister had assured non-application of penal provisions for non-production of way bills. However, the goods were later intercepted, detained, and seized by the Commercial Taxes Directorate for lack of a way bill, which was considered a contravention of section 68 of the 1994 Act.

2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 71 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994:
The applicant was penalized Rs. 1,30,610 under section 71 for failing to produce a way bill. Despite the applicant's contention that the way bill requirement had been kept in abeyance, the authorities imposed the penalty, which was upheld upon revision. The Tribunal confirmed that the failure to carry and produce a way bill amounted to a contravention of statutory provisions, justifying the penalty.

3. Validity of Reliance on Newspaper Reports Regarding Non-application of Penal Provisions:
The applicant's defense was based on newspaper reports indicating that the Finance Minister had assured that penal provisions for non-production of way bills would be kept in abeyance. However, the Tribunal found these reports vague and insufficient to justify non-compliance with statutory requirements. The reports did not provide clear or specific assurances that could override the statutory provisions.

4. Compliance with Statutory Provisions for Way Bills:
The Tribunal emphasized that statutory provisions under sections 68 to 71 of the 1994 Act and rules 210 and 211 of the 1995 Rules required the production of a way bill for taxable goods, including those specified in Part A of Schedule IV. The applicant's failure to produce the way bill when intercepted constituted a material contravention of the law, regardless of any alleged assurances reported in the newspapers.

5. Estoppel Against Statutory Provisions Based on Alleged Assurances by the Finance Minister:
The Tribunal held that even if the Finance Minister had given an assurance (which was not clearly established), it could not operate as an estoppel against the statutory provisions. The law requires compliance with statutory requirements, and vague, unspecific assurances cannot override mandatory legal provisions. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to support the principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application, upholding the seizure and penalty imposed on the applicant. It concluded that the applicant's reliance on newspaper reports was untenable and that statutory provisions must be adhered to irrespective of any alleged assurances. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate given the circumstances, and no cost order was made.