9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try of the schedule to the Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (hereinafter in short, "TVAT Act") it will fall. That is a question to be decided by the Assessing Authority. 3. The issue before us is whether the respondent No. 3 had any authority to seize the goods in question. The stand of the company is that Dettol Antiseptic Liquid is manufactured either in Mysore (Karnataka) or in Baddi (Himachal Pradesh) and from there such goods are transported to the main warehouse in Guwahati from where supplies are made to the other states in the north-east. The case of the petitioner is that the goods which are the subject matter of the invoice had not been sold but were subject matter of a stock transfer between the warehouse at Guwahati to its branch office at Agartala. It is contended that no sale was involved. We make it clear that we are not deciding this question also in these proceedings. 4. The goods in question were admittedly being transferred along with many other goods in Truck No. AS01 T 4717 belonging to one Sri R Debnath. There was an invoice with the Driver of the truck. That invoice shows that a large number of items were being transferred to Agartala in the said truck. Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed appeared to be false or forged, the officer-incharge of the check post or the officer empowered under subsection (3), may - (a) direct the driver or the person in-charge of the vehicle or carrier or of the goods not to part with the goods in any manner including by transporting or re-booking, till a verification is done or an enquiry is made, which shall not take more than seven days ; (b) seize the goods for reasons to be recorded in writing and shall give receipt of the goods to the person from whose possession or control they are seized ; (5) The Officer-in-charge of the check post or the officer empowered under sub-section (3), after having given the person in-charge of the goods a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after having held such enquiry as he may deem fit, shall impose for possession or movement of goods, whether seized or not, in violation of the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) or for submission of false or forged documents in addition to tax leviable, a penalty equal to double the amount of tax, or rupees one thousand, whichever is higher. (6) During the pendency of the proceeding under sub-section (5), if anyone prays for being implead ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is done or seize the goods. However, subsection (4) will come into application only under two circumstances, (i) where no documents are produced and (ii) where the documents on the face of it appear to be false or forged. Thereafter, if the documents are not produced or are false or forged, the Officer-in-Charge of the check post after assessing the goods can give a hearing and can assess the tax and penalty. 9. This provision of law has been the subject matter of a decision by this Court in M/s Ruchi soya Industries Ltd., Vs. The State of Tripura and Ors., in CRP 76/2009 wherein after quoting the provisions of Section 67(4),(5),(6) and (7) this Court held as follows:- "........A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that under sub-section (4) of Section 67 where the goods are being transported without documents or are not supported by documents specifically mentioned in sub-section (2) then the officer-in-charge of the check post or the officer empowered can seize the goods. Such officer can also seize the goods even when the documents produced appear to be false or forged. It is obvious that the officer in such a case must give reasons as to why he considers the docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods, he should preferably follow the first rule. Seizure of the goods is a penal action and normally seizure should only be done where the goods are not accompanied by any document or the documents on the face of it are forged. Where the only difference is with regard to the value of the goods, the officer should not normally seize the goods but should direct the driver or the person in-charge not to sell them till verification of the price is made. In many cases like the present case, where the registered dealers are transporting the goods, it may not be necessary to seize the goods. The value of the goods can be noted down and the goods can be handed over to the driver or the person-in-charge of the vehicle under a surety bond that after they are taken to the destination they shall be produced before the concerned taxation officer. The seizure of goods should be the last resort and not the first action to be taken by the officer-in-charge of the check post. In the present case action of seizure was based on no evidence and is totally illegal." 10. In the present case, neither in the order under challenge nor in the reply is it stated that the documents are false or forged. The o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s modern age, where multinationals have proliferated, there are certain brand names which are applicable to different categories of goods. As far as the present case is concerned, soaps are also sold under the brand name Dettol and antiseptic liquid is also sold under the brand name Dettol. This does not mean that only because the brand name Dettol is used both the goods are to be classified under one entry for the purpose of assessing the tax. If this reasoning of the officer was to be accepted, tomorrow if the petitioner company starts manufacturing cars and starts selling them under the name of Dettol then would the same duty be charged on the cars also? Obviously, the answer is no. What tax has to be charged on an item depends on the classification of the item and on the entry in which that item or good falls, regardless of the brand name which it may have. 15. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that the seizure was totally illegal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the State is directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner to the petitioner within four weeks from today failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
