9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly the petitioner issued a challan-cum-delivery note dated December 3, 2002 on M/s Ma Kalyaneswari Trading Company for supply of 4,000 kilograms of poppy seeds. A declaration form under rule 214B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 for transportation of poppy seeds from Calcutta to Barakar within West Bengal was also prepared. The said goods were received by M/s. Ma Kalyaneswari Trading Company on December 4, 2002. On receipt of such poppy seeds the said company was dissatisfied with the quality of poppy seeds sent by the petitioner and decided to return the entire consignment on the same day. Accordingly the company issued another challan-cum-delivery note on the same day for delivery of the goods to the petitioner. They also prepared a declaration under rule 214B for transportation of the goods from Barakar to Calcutta. 3.. On December 4, 2002 while the truck was on its way to Calcutta, respondent No. 1, that is, Commercial Tax Officer, Durgapur Range, intercepted the vehicle at Neamatpur and asked the driver to produce the documents in support of such transportation. The driver at once produced all the documents and the declaration under rule 214B of the 1995 Rules a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is a clear case of evasion of sales tax and it comes under section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. 6.. Identical type of case came up before this Tribunal when according to Revenue the consignment was undervalued and this Tribunal in RN-275 of 2000 reported in [2002] 125 STC 402; (2001) 37 STA 21 (Gangorri Supply v. Commercial Tax Officer) observed that section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 is sufficient enough to indicate that the valuation is to be looked into while verifying the commodities with reference to the market value shown in the way-bill or invoice in order to judge if there was any act of evasion of sales tax from the side of the dealer. This view was also taken in a subsequent judgment even in a case which was reported in [2001] 124 STC 45 (WBTT) (Kamal Kothari v. Commercial Tax Officer). But subsequently the matter came up for consideration before another Bench on May 21, 2001 in RN-214 of 2001 (Prabhu Kumar Gupta v. C.T.O./Central Section) when another Bench was of the opinion that authorities cannot question the valuation as such provision does not exist in rule 214B and accordingly seizure was declared bad in law. The same view was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contention, Mr. S.K. Chakraborty has drawn our attention to a decision of the High Court reported in [2001] 122 STC 494 (Bhabaneswar Singh v. Commercial Tax Officer) wherein a division Bench of the Calcutta High Court presided over by Justice S.B. Sinha (as His Lordship then was) observed that it is not necessary for the assessing authority at that stage to verify the actual market value visa-vis the value mentioned in the way-bill although the same value was mentioned in different documents accompanying the consignment. He may only make a note thereof and send a report to the assessing authority for the purpose of assessment. It was also observed that the seizure is to be effected in accordance with law and only for the purpose of detection of evasion of sales tax, the statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within the four corners of the statute. That was a case under rule 212. Rule 212 deals with a case where consignment of goods is imported or brought into West Bengal by a person, casual trader, etc. Therefore, rule 212 deals with inter-State movement. But here admittedly it is a case of intra-State transfer and rule 214B deals with such intra-State transfer. So fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 212 should be considered in this case. But here it is a case coming under rule 214B and no inference can be drawn from the requirements as embodied in rule 212. Rule 214B states that a declaration in duplicate appended to the rule duly filled in be given to the driver or the person-in-charge of the road vehicle to be presented before the concerned officer if any vehicle is intercepted under section 69 on its way to destination. If we turn to the declaration form, we find that there are 8 items which are required to be filled in and the item regarding value does not require to be stated or disclosed. However, sub-rule (3) of rule 214B states that declaration is to be used for verification whether such consignment of goods is being transported in contravention of the provisions of section 68. Sub-rule (4) further says that such authority shall verify the particulars of such consignment of goods. Before amendment which took place in May, 2003, the rule is quite silent regarding verification or valuation as it has been provided in other rules, such as, rule 212. 11. Mr. D. Gangopadhyay, learned State Representative, contends that controlling section is section 68 and the rule can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
