2007 (7) TMI 616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wn man facturer of cement in India. The petitioner's manufacturing unit is situated at Raipur in the Stale of Chattisgarh. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as, "the VAT Act") and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In course of its business the petitioner imports cement from its factory at Raipur t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he way-bills presented for endorsement after and sometimes long after the date of taking delivery. The petitioner has annexed a statement being annexure A which shows that endorsement was made even more than four months after the date of taking delivery. However, there is no allegation that any point of time the way-bill in respect of any consignment brought by the petitioner through Kalaikunda r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he way-bill should have been presented for endorsement before taking delivery of the imported consignment. On July 13, 2006, the petitioner in writing expressed regret that it had taken delivery of the consignment without obtaining endorsement on the way-bill, assured that it would stop such practice and would take delivery of the consignment after presentation of the way-bill in future and reques .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... livery of the goods. As already pointed out such practice of presenting way-bill after taking delivery was allowed to be followed by the sales tax authorities of the check-post. True, an irregular practice should not be permitted to be perpetuated and should be stopped. But before stopping, the concerned officer should have put the petitioner on alert that such irregular practice could not be allo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... No. 1 has acted mechanically and without taking a comprehensive view of the documents produced by the petitioner in imposing impugned penalty. We do not find any reason or justification for imposition of penalty. According to us the imposition of penalty in the facts and circumstances of this case is absolutely unwarranted and contrary to the purpose for which the provisions for penalty have been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X