9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (9) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary road permit. The applicant also intimated about the despatch of the material by road by its letter dated October 10, 1995. The material was despatched to the Superintendent, Printing and Stationery, S.E. Railway, Kharagpur vide invoice No. 502 dated September 19, 1995 through Transport Corporation of India, G.R. No. 497408 dated September 19, 1995. 3.. The driver of the vehicle No. B.P.-16G/0739 carrying the consignment did not stop through inadvertence at the transporter's office at Darisole and reached the check-post directly and the consignment was immediately seized. The driver of the truck produced all the documents and requested the respondent No. 1 to allow him time to contact the consignee for sales tax permit but the respondent No. 1 did not allow any time at all and seized the consignment immediately. There was never any intention on the part of the consignee, S.E. Railway, which is a Government of India undertaking, to evade payment of taxes or to import specified goods into West Bengal in contravention of the provisions of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The consignee did not get any opportunity or time to produce the sales tax permit as the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... driver failed to comply with the provisions of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and the Rules made thereunder by not having with him any sales tax permit covering the particulars of the import of the consignment. All the provisions of law as laid down in section 70(1) of the 1994 Act have been duly complied with prior to the said seizure of the consignment. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 imposed penalty as per provisions of law giving the applicant reasonable opportunity of being heard and on due consideration of the submissions put forward by the applicant. The respondent No. 3 did not hold that the seizure was not in accordance with law but considered the fact that the consignee being a Central Government undertaking had no mala fide intention and accordingly took a lenient view in disposing of the case before him. The consignee not being a registered dealer under the Act is required to obtain necessary valid sales tax permit from the appropriate authority giving the relevant particulars referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 211 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (in short "the 1995 Rules"). In the instant case no sales tax permit, as required under the law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermit was with the consignee who was a registered dealer in West Bengal. The statement in the affidavit-in-opposition to the effect that the consignee was not a registered dealer in West Bengal was incorrect. In view of the fact that the consignee who was a registered dealer in West Bengal and who was required to arrange for the permit for transportation of the goods was not in any way subjected to any penalty, it was unconscionable that the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty imposed on the consignor who was a company in U.P. Mr. Ghosh further argued that in any event there was no mala fide intention on the part of the consignor or consignee as will appear very clearly from the documents available in the records. In view of the fact that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the consignor and the consignee in respect of the consignment under question, he argued, the order imposing penalty was unlawful. In this connection, he referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 where it has been held by the Supreme Court that the liability to penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed only when there is mala fide intention. In this connection, he referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer v. Ajit Mills Limited [1977] 40 STC 497 where the Supreme Court has held that the classical view that no mens rea no crime has long ago been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created severe punishment even where the offences have been defined to exclude mens rea. In the light of this judgment, Mr. Goswami argued, there is very little substance in the submission of the applicant that in view of absence of mala fide intention, the applicant was not liable to be penalised. 10.. The respondents have submitted, producing the vehicle register, that the vehicle was intercepted at 23.44 hours on October 15, 1995. The seizure receipt shows the date and time of the seizure to be 10.05 p.m. on October 16, 1995. From this, it has been argued, that about 22 hours' time had been allowed to the applicant for production of the transport permit. This appears to be at variance with the arguments of the learned State Representative that no time was asked for. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion cannot be continued beyond 24 hours and seizure of the goods could take place if the person bringing, importing or receiving such goods fails to furnish such particulars in such form as may be prescribed under section 68. From this, it would be clear that seizure immediately after detention of the vehicle is not contemplated under the Act. The person concerned has to be allowed an opportunity to furnish such particulars in such forms as may be prescribed under section 68. For furnishing such particulars the persons bringing, importing or receiving such goods naturally must be given a reasonable period of time which cannot exceed 24 hours. Hence, it is clear that although 24 hours is the maximum detention time allowable under section 70 of the 1994 Act, a reasonable time must be allowed to the person concerned for production of documents prescribed under section 68. What is a reasonable period may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but it is clear that an opportunity is to be provided to the person whose consignment is detained to produce the permit, etc., and if such opportunity is not given by giving a reasonable time, the seizure would not be in accordance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
