9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 imposing penalty is bad, illegal and without jurisdiction. 2.. The case in brief is that petitioner No. 1 carries on business of transporting goods from West Bengal to different places outside West Bengal. The petitioner received 12 consignment of goods from different consignors in Calcutta and loaded on the truck No. WB 253863 for onward transmission to Delhi. Relevant consignments of goods were also prepared together with the copy of challan. In course of movement of the goods the truck was intercepted on November 23, 2000 at about 3.30 p.m. at Rajbandh near Durgapur and was taken to Durgapur Range Office for verification of the correctness of the bills. The respondent No. 1 came to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... release the goods on furnishing security by making cash deposit of Rs. 50,000 and to continue hearing of the proceedings relating to seizure in accordance with law. The respondent No. 1 served notice upon the petitioner asking him to appear on December 13, 2000 and to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 71 of the Act, 1994. The petitioner appeared on February 20, 2001 and challenged the legality of seizure on the ground, inter alia, that the seizure was made in gross violation of rule 214C of the Rules, 1995. The respondent No. 2 who did not initiate proceeding though was not competent under law to suo motu revise the order of the respondent No. 1 passed an order imposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.. Has the petitioner any right under law to produce the relevant documents even after the seizure of the goods and at the stage of hearing of the proceedings for penalty? 7.. On behalf of the petitioner the learned lawyer Mr. K.K. Saha submits that respondent No. 1 actually initiated the proceeding under section 71 of the Act, 1994 by issuing notice in form No. 44 after seizure. He, therefore, according to the learned lawyer assumed jurisdiction over the matter and under law was competent to hear the same. Since respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction without any previous order from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under sub-section (3) of section 3 by way of transfer of the case to his file the order passed by him imposing further pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in exercise or performance of the powers or duties referred to in subsection (2)." 10.. Thus, under sub-section (3) of section 3 only the Commissioner has power to transfer any case from any officer to any other officer provided such officer is competent to deal with such case or matter. In the instant case, actually we do not find any order of transfer of the case by the Commissioner to the file of the respondent No. 2 from the file of respondent No. 1. At the same time, it appears from the order published on June 30, 1998 (appendix II) of the Act, 1994 that the Commissioner has delegated the powers to the officers subordinate to him and we find that the Assistant Commissioner and Commercial Tax Officer both of the them have got the jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings against the petitioner to be continued by Mr. Mishra, the Additional Sales Tax Officer [1971] 28 STC 308 (MP) (Seth Sunderdas Contractor v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P.). The same principle was adopted in a case Kishan Chand Co. v. K.K. Opal, Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar reported in [1966] 18 STC 50 (Punj). The petitioner was registered as a dealer with the assessing authority, Amritsar, who was competent to hold assessment, as such returns were filed before him. Thereafter the Excise and Taxation Officer, Chandigarh, sent notices to the petitioner requiring to appear before him and such notices were challenged. In the meanwhile the Divisional Enforcement Officer, Amritsar, required the petitioner to produce befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case from the Commissioner. 12.. Thus, in the instant case also the Assistant Commissioner before assuming jurisdiction over the proceeding initiated by the C.T.O. should have obtained a formal order of transfer from the Commissioner and he should have also heard the objection, if any, of the petitioner in the matter of such transfer. Otherwise, a genuine inconvenience will be caused to the dealer when he would be called upon to appear before one officer some day and before another officer on some other day in respect of the self-same matter pending for hearing. Since the respondent No. 1 initiated the proceeding under section 71 of the Act, 1994 by issuing notice in form No. 44 after the seizure dated November 25, 2000, he had the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
