9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in rule 212(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. The case of the petitioner in brief is that before importing the said goods, the petitioner had obtained the way bill from the concerned authority. The same, however, was valid till January 12, 2005. The goods in question reached the Chichira Check-post on February 25, 2005. As the validity period of the way bill had expired on January 12, 2005, the vehicle was detained. Under cover of a letter dated February 26, 2005, the petitioner was granted time till 4 P.M. of February 28, 2005, to produce the way bill. It is the petitioner's case that February 26 and 27, 2005 were a Saturday and a Sunday respectively and the petitioner could obtain fresh way bill only on February 28, 2005 upon surrendering the way bill which had lapsed. But the petitioner could reach the Chichira Check-post only on 6 P.M. on February 28, 2005. The delay, as pleaded by the petitioner was on account of the fact that the way bill was issued on February 28, 2005 at about 1.30 P.M. and the rest of the time was spent in transit, between Kolkata and Chichira. By that time, however, an order of seizure of the goods was passed under section 70(1) of the said A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh in this case as penalty would meet the ends of justice as we observe that we did allow the goods to be released on furnishing security of Rs. 1.5 lakh." This order is now under challenge before us. Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned order mainly on two counts. He has submitted that in computing the period of detention under section 70 of the Act, the intervening sunday (i.e., February 27, 2005) was to be taken into account. It is his case that the petitioner was required to produce the way bill by 4 P.M. on February 28, 2005 and as February 27, 2005 was admittedly a Sunday, time should have been granted uptil March 1, 2005 for production of the way bill, within which date the way bill was admittedly produced. Thus, the statutory period permitting production of way bill was not allowed. The second limb of his argument is that the petitioner had no intention to evade payment of tax and hence no penalty should have been imposed on them as it could not be held that the petitioner had acted deliberately in defiance of law. For this proposition he has rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . . . (2) If the driver or person-in-charge of the vehicle transporting any consignment of goods fails to present the way bill in form 42 at the time of entry of such vehicle into the area of a check-post as required by sub-rule (1), such driver or person-in-charge may request the Commercial Tax Officer or Assistant Commercial Tax Officer of such check-post in writing stating therein the reason for not being in possession of such way bill and to allow him time for presentation of the way bill. (3) On the request of the driver or person-in-charge of the vehicle made under sub-rule (2), the Commercial Tax Officer or Assistant Commercial Tax Officer of the check-post shall allow time, not exceeding forty eight hours from the entry of such vehicle, to enable him to present the way bill in form 42 before the expiry of the time allowed by him, and the vehicle with such consignment of goods shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), remain detained till the time of presentation of such way bill or the expiry of the time allowed, whichever is earlier." Having considered such rules in the light of the facts of the present case, we are of the view that no default was made on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have lost sight of the main issue as to the evasion of payment of tax by the petitioner or his intention to do so. Since the petitioner had failed to produce the documents referred to in section 73 of the Act and rule 214C of the Rules within the stipulated period of 48 hours from the time of detention, the seizure of the goods by the Commercial Tax Officer was justified, but the question is whether penalty could have been imposed merely on account of such seizure. Whether penalty could be imposed depended on the facts and circumstances of the case and proper satisfaction being arrived at by the authorities that the petitioner had intended to evade payment of tax. Paradoxically, while the Commercial Tax Officer and the revisional forums relied heavily on the delivery challans produced by the driver of the vehicle in imposing penalty and confirming the same, the learned Tribunal, while choosing not to interfere with the imposition of penalty observed that the said delivery challans were extraneous and irrelevant to the carriage or transportation of goods from West Bengal to a place outside the State." The requirement to establish intention to evade tax for imposition of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
