9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (4) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnee and to explain how he came to be transporting the goods. He was also possessed of a letter authorising the consignee's representatives Meenambika Co., to pay the charges for the conveyance. The Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, who checked this consignment, immediately proceeded to issue a notice in Form No. 53 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. This notice called upon the driver of the lorry to pay in lieu of confiscation of the goods, a sum of Rs. 276. The notice did not state what conditions prescribed by the Act or the Rules had been violated but merely stated that the conditions prescribed in rule 36(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, had been violated and that the goods were liable to be confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o act under section 34 of the Act examined the order of the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and came to the conclusion that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that there were any vitiating features in the procedure followed by the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was incorrect. It, therefore, set aside the order of the appellate authority. It is against this order of the Board of Revenue that the present appeal has been filed. Section 42 which confers the necessary powers on the authorities to seize and confiscate any goods in so far as it is relevant reads thus: "42 (1)..... (2)..... (3) The officer in charge of the check post or barrier, or the officer empowered as aforesaid shall have power to seize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as further to give a notice to the person affected giving him an option to pay monetary penalty in lieu of confiscation. It will be noticed that both of these provisos are directed towards giving a suitable opportunity to the person affected, obviously a person who would be affected by the order of confiscation, that is to say, the person having the beneficial interest in the goods. It is not denied by the learned Additional Government Pleader that at no stage was any notice given to the appellant, the owner of the goods. Such notice, as was given, was given only to the lorry driver. There appears to have been no enquiry at all as result of which the officer came to the conclusion that the goods were liable to be confiscated. No such order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice to the owner. This observation is also followed by a statement by the Board that there is "no need to issue a notice to the owner of the goods when there is, no actual confiscation and sale; therefore the issue of notice to and collection of compounding fee from the lorry driver who was the person in charge of the goods that were transported in the lorry without a delivery note or bill of sale is in accordance with the provisions of the Act." We are utterly unable to follow this interpretation of the rules. The very right to make an order confiscating the goods is conditioned by the requirement that there should be a notice to the person affected and an enquiry into the liability for confiscation made in the presence of such owner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
