9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount of penalty imposed thereby. Similar issue being involved in RN-306 of 2002, 307 of 2002, 308 of 2002, 309 of 2002, 310 of 2002, 311 of 2002, 312 of 2002, 314 of 2002, 315 of 2002, 321 of 2002, and 322 of 2002, all these matters were heard together alongwith RN-305 of 2002. In RN-305 of 2002 it is the case of the petitioner that the goods were seized without any bona fide reason and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vely. The respondent in his affidavit-in-opposition categorically stated that the seizure was valid and receipt was handed over to the driver of the vehicle after seizure of goods who accepted it under his signature. The penalty amount in all these cases were also paid. Therefore, the petitioner has taken absolutely baseless plea and the case is speculative. The application, therefore, is liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seizure report under his signature. Therefore, to challenge the validity of the seizure, the petitioner should have come before this Tribunal within a period of sixty days from the date of the action taken by the respondents. In some of the cases, as we find, the seizure was made as far as back in the year 1999 and in some cases in 2000. The applications were filed in the year 2002 without stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, within sixty days prior to the commencement of the aforesaid clause (a) of the said section and that he has not moved the High Court against such order or action passed or taken under the specified State Act. Therefore, we find that all the applications filed on behalf of the petitioner is barred by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
