9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003 by the Deputy Commissioner (D.C.), Commercial Taxes, (respondent No. 3) affirming the seizure and modifying the penalty amount from Rs. 1,75,000 to Rs. 1,05,705. Prayer has also been made for refund of the amount of Rs. 1,05,705 paid as penalty. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 2 purchased a consignment of rice bran oil from shudham traders of Kanpur for Rs. 3,46,951 and had been transporting the same from Kanpur to Kharagpur, West Bengal by vehicle No. WB 39-4502 (tanker) and all the documents like invoice, consignment note, etc., were kept at the agent's office at Maithon (Chirkunda) for filling up the way bill No. 5719578 dated July 18, 2002. As such the driver at the time of interception of the vehicle at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... officials to place the vehicle, i.e., tanker No. WB 39-4502 at the checking yard for physical verification, the driver fled away with the tanker. As a result, the check-post officials started chasing the running tanker which took different routes and ultimately entered Jharkhand State. F.I.R. as such had to be lodged at the police station of Maithon (Jharkhand). The police officer of Maithon police Station after intercepting the said tanker intimated by letter about such interception and the check-post officials received that tanker at the West Bengal Jharkhand border from the police team of Maithon police station on September 28, 2002. Then verification of the goods and the documents, started at the Duburdih check-post. It was found th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced on September 29, 2002 and the order of penalty was written behind the back of the driver since the order bears driver's signature only on the first page of the order which signature was obtained on a blank paper. The only point for consideration is: Whether the order of seizure and the order of penalty can be sustained or not. Learned advocate for the petitioner took us through the provisions of section 70 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 to emphasise that interception of road vehicle is followed by detention of the same which detention may lead to seizure only after allowing 48 hours time to the person bringing such goods for furnishing particulars in such form or such documents as may be prescribed under section 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been carrying consignment of jhola gur were produced by the driver on September 26, 2002 which are concocted documents. It is only after the driver showed such documents, he was directed to place the vehicle in the checking yard for checking and the detention must be presumed to have started right from that moment but the driver instead of placing the vehicle in the checking yard sped away with the vehicle and moved to opposite direction and ultimately entered Jharkhand and these facts are duly noted in the ground of seizure and the F.I.R. The recovery of the vehicle by the Maithon police and intimation about the same and handing over of the vehicle at the Jharkhand Bengal border to the check-post authority on September 28, 2002 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under the Act. The person concerned has to be allowed an opportunity to furnish such particulars in such forms or documents as may be prescribed under section 68. To enable that person to furnish such particulars a reasonable period of time not exceeding 48 hours is generally to be given after detention. If such opportunity of providing reasonable time is not given by the authority to furnish the required documents, the seizure would not be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If the consignment is seized right at the time of interception the seizure becomes illegal. On perusal of the judgment of this Tribunal in RN122 of 1996 (Rawal Papers Limited v. Inspector of Commercial Taxes [1999] 115 STC 690) xerox copy of which has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pposition. We directed the respondent to produce the official memo No. 9866 dated September 26, 2002 and the letter dated September 28, 2002 of the Officer-in-Charge (O.C.), Maithon police which are referred in the grounds of seizure. We find then that the facts stated as forming the grounds of seizure find support from the memo lodged as an F.I.R. and the relevant intimation by the Maithon police with request to get the vehicle from them from Jharkhand West Bengal border. We do not find anything as such to disbelieve those documents which prove the allegation as made by the respondent-authorities. We have also gone through the impugned orders of C.T.O., A.C. and the D.C. The D.C. in his Order dated January 6, 2003 has given in detail the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
