9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a dealer registered under 1994 Act and running a business of resale of computer spare parts. He imports the goods from outside India and sells them within as well as outside the State of West Bengal. The impugned consignment of computer parts was imported from Taipei in Taiwan. The exporter company was M/s. Ability Electron Co. Ltd. of Taipei. After payment of customs duty at the Calcutta Airport, applicant allegedly wanted to know the actual position of law in the matter of production of way bill from the check-post authorities of Calcutta Airport, because although the law had been amended by abolishing the system of production of permit, the newly introduced provision for production of way bill was kept in abeyance with effect from July 1, 1998 by the State Government. The impression that was received from the checkpost authorities was that way bill was not required in view of the newspaper report and no permit could be accepted as the law had been amended. Allegedly on that basis the check-post authorities of Calcutta Airport released the goods without demanding any way bill. But on July 13, 1998 when truck No. WB-41-5989 loaded with the said computer goods was moving towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95 Rules") a declaration in form 40, which is a prescribed form with the heading-"declaration of imports/application of permit"-was required to be produced along with railway receipt, bill of lading, or document of like nature before the appropriate assessing authority or the appropriate inspector for his signature where goods specified in Part A of Schedule IV were to be taken delivery of from places like railway station, steamer station, sea port, airport or post offices. Under sections 69 and 70 of 1994 Act seizure of the goods was to be made, when upon detention, the person importing the goods failed to furnish the required particulars in the prescribed form under section 68. Rule 211, as it stood then, laid down that when the consignment would be intercepted, the person importing or bringing the goods was required to present the declaration endorsed under rule 211(3). In trade parlance the said declaration was known as permit. The aforesaid provisions in the Act and the Rules related to notified goods and goods specified in Part A of Schedule IV. Subsequently various changes were effected in sections 68, 69, 70 and 71, etc., as well as in rules 210 and 211. With effect from Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nister of the State was announcing from time to time in various newspapers from the very inception of the provisions for production of way bill that the production of way bill has been kept in abeyance and it was extended till December 31, 1998". In paragraph 6 of the application it was stated that the newly introduced provision for production of way bill was kept in abeyance by the Government of West Bengal. At the time of hearing, learned advocate for the applicant produced original newspapers, namely, the Statesman, the Telegraph and the Business Standard of July 24, 1998, and also the Ananda Bazar Patrika dated July 24, 1998, the Bartaman dated July 25, 1998 and the Economic Times, Calcutta, dated September 2, 1998, and furnished photo-copies of the relevant portions of those newspapers. In the Statesman, the relevant report is to the following effect: "According to Mahesh Singhania, an association spokesman, the Finance Minister assured them that penal provisions under the way bill would be kept in abeyance for another month". The reports in the Business Standard and the Telegraph did not contain anything regarding postponement of implementation of way bill system. The repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble goods or in respect of all taxable goods including notified goods and goods specified in Part A of Schedule IV to 1994 Act. 6.. This plea was taken by the applicant before respondent No. 1. From the order dated July 17, 1998 passed by respondent No. 1 in the penalty proceeding, we see that it was argued on behalf of the applicant before him that the requisite permit could not accompany the seized consignment because of a report dated July 1, 1998 in the Statesman by which the applicant was misled, and the applicant had no mala fide intention to evade payment of tax. Respondent No. 1 held that the report was not clear; and contravention of statutory provision cannot be justified by such a report. Respondent No. 2 in his order dated February 15, 1999 did not discuss these issues like respondent No. 1. He noted that undisputedly the seized goods were imported without obtaining either sales tax permit or way bill from the appropriate authority, and there was contravention of section 68. He confirmed the imposition of penalty by respondent No. 1. From the grounds of revision taken before respondent No. 2, it appears that the applicant had taken the same ground of newspaper report i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was any assurance given, it could not operate as estoppel against the statutory provisions, and would not bind the State Government. Therefore, even if any assurance, as claimed, was given by the Finance Minister (though not established) does not bind the State Government, and the State Government was free to implement the statutory provisions whenever it chose to. Therefore, no grievance can be made because in spite of some assurance said to be given by the Finance Minister, there were seizure and imposition of penalty for non-production of way bill in contravention of statutory provisions. 8.. According to Statute Law by Craies, 7th edition, page 74, there is very little authority for any of the propositions that people may contract themselves out of rights given them by statute or that people may contract not to set up a defence given by statute, or that a person may waive or be estopped by his conduct from setting up a defence given him by statute. Craies (on Statutes law) continues: "..........they are valid, if at all, only in cases where the statute merely deals with procedure or gives a private right which may be renounced, and are not applicable as against a specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
