9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant No. 2 is a partner of the firm. The first applicant was transporting two consignments of 11,400 m.t. of jeera and 3,780 m.t. of souff which were purchased from dealers in Gujarat. The consignments were despatched through Balaji Transport Corporation. The consignee obtained two sales tax permits in form 41 from Commercial Tax Office, Asansol issued by the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, Asansol Charge for transportation of the commodity. The driver of the vehicle No. RJ-19G-3343 carrying the consignment handed over all the documents including the two sales tax permits to the helper to produce the same before the check-post authorities. He took the vehicle to a nearby hotel and, as per allegedly the common practice at the check-po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y but reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,05,000. The applicant preferred a revision against this order before the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 without considering the facts of the case, reduced the penalty to an amount of Rs. 90,000. Being aggrieved by this order the applicant has approached this Tribunal. 4.. The case of the respondent, as available from their affidavit-in-opposition, is that the story of a khalasi being entrusted with the documents including the sales tax permits is false. The driver of the vehicle admitted in a written declaration that no sales tax permit was in his possession in support of the consignment. The driver also stated that when he met the agent at Bihar border on May 7, 1997 and asked him whether any sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of taking all the relevant papers from the khalasi by the respondent No. 1 does not arise. It is submitted that 48 hours is the maximum time which is allowed in cases where the necessary sales tax permit has already been obtained but the same could not be produced due to some unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the person/driver who carried the goods at the time of interception. Again the person/driver is required to pray for time in writing before the concerned authority. In the instant case the driver himself confessed that there was no sales tax permit in his possession. No such prayer for time for production of the sales tax permit was made within 24 hours till the seizure was made. Even at the time of hearing the authorised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner to be the first one. In their affidavit-in-reply, the applicants have generally reiterated their case. 7.. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the applicant, argued that the consignment was seized on May 9, 1997 but the seizure list was issued on May 10, 1997. There is no explanation for such delay. In any event, he submitted, it is clear that the seizure took place well before the statutory period of 48 hours that is to be available to a person transporting goods and therefore the seizure should be held to be invalid. He also submitted that the so-called declaration made by the driver was not at all a voluntary one but was one obtained under coercion. He pointed out that the driver has not mentioned anything about a helpe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of the application in form 40 although the vehicle number was not mentioned and therefore no adverse presumption could be made against the applicants for non-mentioning of the vehicle number on the sales tax permits. 8.. Mr. M.C. Mukhopadhyay, learned State Representative, submitted that the vehicle was intercepted on May 8, 1997 and it would be clear from the form 44 notice issued to the driver that the goods had been seized on May 9, 1997. The actual seizure receipt has been issued on May 10, 1997. This delay in the issue of the seizure receipt could not be considered to be sufficient reason for declaring the seizure invalid. The validity of the seizure should be examined on the basis of the entire chain of circumstances. Mr. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te simple. The point to be decided is whether the check-post authorities had obtained the relevant documents including sales tax permits from the khalasi of the vehicle and thereafter denied it, as alleged by the applicant or whether the driver had run away from the check-post without any production of any document whatsoever. In this connection, the respondents have relied upon the statement which, according to them, has been made by the driver on his own. If this statement is to be believed, then there was no sales tax permit available with the driver. There is no mention about the presence of any khalasi in the vehicle of the driver. If this statement is true, then the question whether the driver had the permit in his possession would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
