9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruary 2002, M/s. Nestle India Ltd., engaged the present petitioner for transporting their goods as stock transfer from Goa to three different places, viz., Patna in Bihar, Siliguri in West Bengal and Guwahati in Assam. All the goods were sent by the same vehicle but under three different consignment notes, viz., consignment note No. 000673 for Patna, No. 000674 for Siliguri and No. 000675 for Guahati. The petitioner's vehicle bearing registration No. MH-10A 9585 proceeded from Goa to Guahati via Patna and Siliguri. The consignment meant for Patna godown was unloaded at Patna and thereafter, the vehicle entered West Bengal without stopping at Dalkhola check-post at the entry point in West Bengal. The said vehicle as intercepted at Pha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision and upheld the penalty imposed by the Commercial Tax Officer. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Tribunal. Admittedly, the driver did not carry any declaration as required under section 72 of the 1994 Act read with rule 223 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as, the 1995 Rules ). It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that it was not possible for the transporter to make the required declaration as the vehicle was required to stop at Siliguri to unload the consignment for Siliguri Stores. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner when the vehicle entered into West Bengal, the transporter could not declare that the vehicle was bound for a place outside West Bengal inasmuc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l evasion of tax is not necessary. The purpose of section 72 is to prevent any kind of possibility of evasion of tax. What is required to be ascertained is that if the contravention was not detected, whether the dealer or transporter could have unloaded, delivered or sold those goods in West Bengal. Once the possibility is established, it is for the concerned person to prove that in fact there was no such possibility in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Post-interception/post-detection conduct is not material inasmuch as nobody after interception or detection will normally venture to commit any further illegality or irregularity. Postinterception conduct may be a relevant factor in determining the quantum of penalty. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the petitioner cannot be totally absolved of its liability to pay penalty. But the amount of penalty should be reduced because of the presence of mitigating circumstances. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in its totality, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. The impugned penalty order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner is accordingly modified. If the petitioner has lready paid the entire penalty amount, the concerned respondents will refund Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. B.K. MAJUMDAR (Technical Member). I agree. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VAT & Sales Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
