9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1941 Act" and "the 1956 Act"). The company imports goods into West Bengal from outside the State. The impugned consignment of stainless steel wire rods was being transported into West Bengal from Mukand Iron Steel Works Ltd., Bombay, through M/s. Interways Transports. Upon receiving information that the consignment was being despatched, an application for issue of permit was filed on February 5, 1988, under rule 93(1) of the Rules under the 1941 Act. The authorities asked the applicant to produce documents on February 8, 1988, for consideration of grant of the permit. February 7, 1988, was a Sunday. On February 8, 1988, the permit was issued. Meanwhile information was received t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otices on February 19, 1988, on the applicant, one dated February 9, 1988, being a notice for penalty proceeding and another dated February 19, 1988, being a notice asking to take delivery of the goods on payment of penalty determined at Rs. 81,804. These notices are alleged to be null and void having been made in spite of production of the permit and contrary to the High Court's interim order. Hence, this second application under article 226. 4.. The case of the respondents is that the applicant had applied for issue of a permit in form XXX-B which is generally issued to certain dealers as a special facility in respect of future imports of notified goods for use, after filling in the blank columns therein. On February 6, 1988, at 5.50 a. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the applicant paid tax of Rs. 13,089 as determined by the Commercial Tax Officer. The tax was determined only after the senior Law Officer of the Commercial Tax Directorate instructed the Commercial Tax Officer to do so by a letter. That was done after the applicant's Advocate by letter dated February 20, 1988, threatened proceedings for contempt of the order of the High Court. The penalty order is, therefore, prayed to be quashed. 6.. In the present application the prayers of the applicant are confined to challenging the notices, one for determining the value of the goods for imposing penalty and another communicating the imposition of penalty at Rs. 81,804. It is admitted that on payment of the tax of Rs. 13,089, the lorry and the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty was imposed on February 19, in wilful disregard of the High Court's order dated February 18, 1988. Mr. D. Majumdar, learned State Representative, conceded that the penalty order is a nullity and deserves to be regarded as non est. We also consider it to be so. 9. Mr. P.K. Bose, learned Advocate for the applicant, urged only two points, giving up the charges of malice and contravention of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He first argued that section 4A of the 1941 Act does not apply to the applicant which is a registered dealer. Secondly, he argued that the requirement of section 4B was fulfilled by the applicant by production of the permit. So, penalty could not be imposed. He relied on the decision of Prati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, are parallel Acts. Sections 6 and 7 of the second Act and the relevant Rules made thereunder and sections 4B and 14A of the 1941 Act and the relevant rules framed under that Act are in almost identical language. The case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. [1990] 76 STC 155 [RN-1, 18(T) and 90(T) of 1989] was decided by the Full Bench of this Tribunal by a judgment dated August 9, 1989. Both of us were parties to that judgment. Sections 6 and 7 of the said 1954 Act and rules made in that connection were considered in that judgment. We are naturally bound by the ratio laid down in that case and that ratio equally applies to the present case, though this is under the 1941 Act and its Rules. 13.. We are of the opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity of being heard as contained in sub-section (2) of section 7, must necessarily be held to include an opportunity to show cause why no penalty should at all be imposed. We interpret section 7(2) in the manner indicated above." 14.. Mr. D. Majumdar, learned State Representative, fairly submitted that the delay in production of permit on February 8, 1988, has been explained as from the date of filing of the application on February 5, 1988, because February 7 was a Sunday. But according to him, the applicant has not yet explained before the Commercial Tax Officer the delay in applying for the permit in the context that the goods were despatched from Bombay on February 2 and such despatch was not expected to be without an order from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
