2003 (12) TMI 601 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of West Bengal Taxation Tribunal dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing main application challenging seizure of goods.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged an order by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal dismissing their application for condonation of delay in filing the main application challenging the seizure of goods. The petitioners were carriers of goods on behalf of M/s. Promising Exports Ltd. when the seizure occurred, leading to penalty proceedings against them. The petitioners initially challenged this before the Assistant Commissioner, Taxation, Central Section. Meanwhile, M/s. Promising Exports Ltd. was advised to challenge the seizure proceedings before the Tribunal, as only penalty proceedings could be questioned before the department. The Tribunal dismissed M/s. Promising Exports Ltd.'s application due to a dispute over ownership of the seized goods. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application challenging the seizure proceedings, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal. The main application was filed beyond the limitation period, and an application for condonation of delay was rejected by the Tribunal, citing dissatisfaction with the cause of delay. The petitioners contended that the delay was due to incorrect advice from the department. The petitioners had been pursuing remedies related to the seizure before the department, which lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order, directing the main application to be heard after condonation of the delay.

In the grounds and petition filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, it was noted that both the penalty imposed on the seized goods and the seizure itself were questioned. The Revenue contended that challenging the seizure was necessary to challenge the penalty proceedings. The Court acknowledged this but also recognized the petitioners' argument that the seizure proceedings were part of the revisional application. Some grounds in the form 53 raised grievances about the seizure, claiming it was illegal and should be quashed. The Court found that the petitioners had been actively seeking remedies regarding the seizure, which the department had no jurisdiction over. The Tribunal should have considered this while dealing with the application for condonation of delay and the main application challenging the seizure.

The Court allowed the writ application, setting aside the Tribunal's order rejecting the application for condonation of delay and the main application challenging the seizure proceedings. No costs were awarded, and parties were directed to act on a signed copy of the order.