9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laration in the relevant form under the rule 211A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (herein after referred Rules, 1995). The documents were duly endorsed by the Calcutta Port Authorities and the goods were loaded on the truck No. WMQ-710 and noted in the declaration form. The movement of such vehicles according to the rules are restricted within the area of the Calcutta Port. The goods, therefore, had to be unloaded from the said truck since it could not move outside the Port area and the same goods were again loaded on the truck No. OSX-6571 of Shakti Transport for onward transportation to Orissa. 3.. On October 7, 2002 the truck No. OSX-6571 was intercepted by the respondent No. 1. All the documents except the declaration since w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity. Perusing the xerox copy of the declaration, annexure "C" to this application and the xerox copy of invoices, annexure "D" to this application, we find that the truck numbers are different but the goods found loaded in truck No. OSX-6571 and those loaded previously in Port area on truck No. WMQ-710 are same and identical and it is also not disputed. Hence, in our opinion, it is an instance of simple mistake apparent on the face of the record and such unintentional mistake cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods in question. 8.. The next point for consideration is, if non-production of the declaration at the time of checking can be a valid ground of seizure of the goods. Under sub-rule (5) of rule 211A, it is provided that at the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing penalty. There is nothing on record to prove that the petitioner actually evaded the payment of tax or had the intention to evade the payment of tax. If no such intention according to the learned lawyer, is found the order of penalty cannot be sustained under law. In support of this contention, the learned lawyer relied n the case reported in Maple Exports Private Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (2002) 39 STA 52, Zarghamuddin Ansari (Anwar) v. Commercial Tax Officer (2001) 38 STA 129 and Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC). The learned State Representative raised serious objection and submitted that the attempt to withhold the declaration form is certainly an intention to evade payment of tax. The order of pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . v. CTO, Central Section, Commercial Tax Officer, reported in (2002) 39 STA 52. In this case, there was no endorsement in the way bill since the check-post at the international terminal could not be found. The goods were seized and the penalty was imposed despite production of way bill. The goods were exported to the ultimate destination. The honourable Court held that though there is no endorsement in the way bill no intention was found to evade payment of taxes. 13.. In a case of Zarghamuddin Ansari (Anwar) v. Commercial Tax Officer and reported in (2001) 38 STA 129 the documents produced subsequently, were not considered. The imposition of penalty was held to be invalid since there is no finding on intention to evade payment of taxes. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
