Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2006 (6) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion, affirming the order dated May 20, 2002 in the seizure case No. 320G/01 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Section imposing penalty of Rs. 4,12,500 under section 71 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 on the ground of contravention of the provision of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The admitted fact is that a consignment of H.R. Coils arrived at the Belur Railway Station from Steel Authority of India Ltd. ( SAIL ). In the railway receipt, the SAIL at Bokaro was described as consignor and SAIL at Kolkata consignee of this consignment. It was seized from M/s. Bengal Steel Processor and was released to it against undertaking. The applicant M/s. Patton Electro Ltd., was the purchaser .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the orders dated May 20, 2002 and August 27, 2002 as well as for quashing the notice to the garnishee as aforesaid on the grounds that the seizure and imposition of penalty were not legal because the Steel Authority of India Ltd., Kolkata imported the consignment from its Bokaro Steel Plant as consignee, took delivery of the same at railway siding at Belur and handed over the consignment to the applicant and as such the applicant had no obligation to obtain and produce the way-bill. In this application the applicant contended that as there was no intention of evasion of tax, the object of production of waybill was not frustrated and as such the imposition of penalty and the notice for garnishee were bad in law. It further contended in this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . When the respondents complain violation of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, and SAIL is shown as the consignee, the initial onus is on the respondents to prove that the consignment was released by the applicant. But in the present case the photocopies of the invoice-cum-despatch advices as annexed to the application, clearly speak that the applicant was consignee in respect of the consignment in question. So, it was correctly found that the applicant imported the consignment from outside West Bengal and took delivery of the same from the railways. (iii) The sub-section (1) of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 provides, to ensure that there is no evasion of tax, no person shall transport from any railw .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... applicant to the penalty under section 71 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. (iii) The object of the legislation of section 68(1) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 is to ensure that there is no evasion of tax . In the impugned order dated May 20, 2002 passed in the seizure case No. 320G/01 of 2001-02, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Section observed inter alia, the facts that those purchases have been recorded by the importer in his books of account or those are for export do not relieve the importer from obtaining the way-bill and make it endorsed at the time of transportation . In the impugned order passed on June 13, 2003 by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal in the Revisi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ner of Commercial Taxes, Midnapore Circle [2003] 131 STC 491 (Cal); [2003] 41 STA 132 (Cal) and the honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of WS Tele Systems Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Zone-II, Bangalore reported in [1997] 107 STC 568 observed that in order to impose penalty under taxing statute, it is incumbent to prove a guilty intention or mala fide motive on the part of the tax-payer. I agree with the learned advocate for the applicant that on the basis of the aforesaid decisions of the honourable Supreme Court and High Court it should have been held that there was no possibility of evasion of tax if the goods were not seized and that the applicant did not produce the way-bill to get chance of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates