9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Taxes, Central Section. The fact of the case is that the petitioner, Sri Surjit Singh Chawla, is a transporter carrying on business under the trade name of M/s. Chawla Road Lines having its office at 71/1, Colootala Street, Kolkata 700 073 and godown at No. 1/4C, Khagen Chatterjee Road, Kolkata 700 002. In this godown the goods which are transported by the petitioner are stored. On November 8, 1999, the respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section (in short, C.T.O. CS ) visited the godown and found huge stock of taxable goods stored thereat. The respondent No. 1, with the help of Sri Raj Bahadur Singh, the Manager of the godown, prepared an inventory of goods and seized those goods for contravention of section 68 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her way bills for future consignments. It is further stated that the goods for which there was no way bills, the said goods were transported within West Bengal for which relevant documents were produced before the respondent No. 1, i.e., Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section at the time of hearing. The learned Advocate has alleged that 48 hours time was not allowed to produce relevant documents including way bills. Moreover, it is argued that the value of the goods was arbitrarily determined at Rs. 7,13,518. The learned Advocate has urged that the purported orders passed by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are bad, illegal, and erroneous, without and/or in excess of jurisdiction and as such, are liable to be quashed. Mr. A.K. Nath, lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 71 of the Act at the checkpost against serial No. 24 of the seized goods. The learned State Representative has pointed out that at the time of hearing, the petitioner produced xerox copy of way bill No. I-1409612, I-1409620, I-1409627, I1894076 and I-1894079, but the goods imported against the way bills No. I-1894076 and I-1894079 were already delivered to the importing dealer prior to the date of seizure, i.e., prior to November 8, 1999. Hence, it is argued that the claim of the dealer that the seized item Nos. 15 and 16 were imported against those two way bills cannot be accepted. With respect to valuation of goods, the learned State Representative has submitted that after allowing reasonable discount from the printed M.R. P., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner produced xerox copy of way bills against serial Nos. 3, 5, 6, 15, 16, 20, 25 and 31 of seizure list, the respondent No. 1 pointed out that on verification it was found that the goods of serial Nos. 15 and 16 were already delivered to the original importer prior to the date of seizure. There is nothing on records to show that the petitioner denied this fact. The respondent No. 1 also observed that the Xerox copy of way bills in respect of seized goods under serial Nos. 3, 5, 6, 20, 25 and 31 were not the relevant way bills. The petitioner did not disclose any particulars of the way bills in his application to rebut the findings of the respondent No. 1. As such, we hold that the seizure of goods except serial Nos. 24 and 27 are legal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
