2002 (6) TMI 585 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality and validity of the order of seizure.
2. Lawfulness of the order imposing penalty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Order of Seizure:

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, challenged the seizure of goods by the Commercial Tax Officer on December 8, 1999. The petitioner contended that the officer did not physically count the stock and falsely recorded the number of hides and skins. The petitioner argued that the seizure was made without considering the evidence of permits, invoices, and consignment notes that were produced. The respondent, however, claimed that the physical counting was done with the cooperation of the petitioner, who failed to produce any purchase bill or way-bill for the 1,214 pieces of hide. The respondent stated that the goods were imported from Bodra, Gujarat, without the necessary permits, making the seizure lawful. The Tribunal found that the pre-seizure report indicated a substantial amount of hides and skins, and the petitioner failed to produce relevant documents at the time of the visit. The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction to search and seize under section 69(b) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, was not challenged, and the seizure was lawful as the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.

2. Lawfulness of the Order Imposing Penalty:

The petitioner also challenged the imposition of a penalty, arguing that the documents produced were sufficient and that the penalty was imposed arbitrarily. The respondent countered that the documents produced later were not genuine and did not prove that the stock related to imports from the previous year. The Tribunal noted that three fact-finding authorities had found discrepancies in the documents and that the petitioner had failed to prove the findings to be perverse. The Tribunal held that the penalty was lawful, as the petitioner did not produce any documents initially and the documents produced later did not inspire confidence. The penalty amount was reduced from Rs. 3,75,000 to Rs. 1,75,000 by the Deputy Commissioner, which the Tribunal found reasonable. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the findings of the fact-finding authorities were not tainted with malice or perversity.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the order of seizure and the penalty were valid and lawful. The petitioner was ordered to bear the respective costs, and the cash deposited as per a previous order was to be adjusted against the penalty amount, with the bank guarantee to be invoked for the balance.