9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Siliguri to M/s. Birender Kumar Sandip Kumar of Amratala Street, Kolkata 1. The petitioner received two copies of tax invoice bearing No. SJS/001/ 0809 dated April 16, 2008 from the said consignor and accordingly drew lorry manifest/challan No. 2010 dated April 16, 2008 and loaded the goods on truck No. WB-23-5379 and handed over the aforesaid documents to the driver. When the truck was on B.T. Road around Kharadh, the Sales Tax Officer, Barrackpore Range detained the truck in the morning on April 20, 2008 and demanded documents and seized the goods on April 25, 2008 for non-production of document/s by that date. On April 29, 2008 the attorney/ representative of the petitioner met the Sales Tax Officer, Barrackpore Range (respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after verification the goods with the documents, the truck was not allowed to move to its destination rather the consignment of the goods was seized arbitrarily and against the rule and hence the seizure is palpably bad, illegal and invalid and is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted by Mr. Khan that respondent No. 1 demanded production of purchase documents of the goods in question by the consignor and that is neither authorized by law nor was relevant in this case and hence the seizure on that ground also is bad and illegal. It is further argued that respondent No. 1 has so seized the goods on the other extraneous ground that the value of the seized goods shown in the documents is in variation with the prevailing market price the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the said rule, for such transportation the driver is to carry a forwarding note/challan in duplicate along with the transporter s copy and an extra copy of tax invoice or two copies of invoices issued by the selling dealer. There is no dispute that the transporter drew the required lorry manifest/challan No. 2010 dated April 16, 2008 and handed over the same to the driver along with two copies of tax invoice bearing No. SJS/ 001/08-09 dated April 16, 2008 issued by the consignor and those were produced before respondent No. 1 on demand after interception. It appears, therefore, that the petitioner being the transporter of the consignment had all the relevant documents for transportation of the goods from Siliguri to Kolkata. But that is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents thereof it appears that there is a material variation in value as the market price of jeera at Siliguri was then Rs. 100 to Rs. 112 per kg. but the sale price is shown at Rs. 70 per kg. in the invoice of the consignor. It will be noted here that the respondents have also filed some authentic documents regarding market price of jeera at Gujarat prevailed at the relevant point of time wherefrom it appears that the market price of jeera before and after arrival of such new crop was more than the said price shown in the invoice by the consignor. Hence, it can be concluded that the variation is material here in this case as the purchase price is found higher than that of the selling price shown by the consignor. Therefore, though the demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
