9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is act of seizure valid, existence of reasonable ground of suspicion is a condition precedent. This apart, no penalty can be raised or assessed on mere suspicion without any material basis. The certificate, granted by the Forest Officer, shows that the rates, mentioned in the Bill and Form-DIX, were correct. We further find that respondent Commercial Tax Officer, on self assessment, based on surmises, came to the conclusion that the rate quoted was low and, thus, fixed the value of logs at 1000/-per cubit feet in place of ₹ 700/-and ₹ 764/-, which were mentioned in the Bill, without assigning any cogent reason therefore. We too notice that there was no material or basis for coming to the conclusion that the rate, mentioned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the seizure was made on mere suspicion without any material basis. 4. Before we take up the ground of challenge for considerations, it would be necessary to notice, in brief, the facts and provisions of law. 5. The petitioner purchased Timber worth ₹ 4,67,619/-from D. N. Patel Brother Timber Merchant, at Raipur, Chhatisgarh, on which he paid 2% CST vide Bill, dated 16.12.2013. The said Timber was dispatched by Timber Merchant through a transporter, namely, Janki Roadways, Raipur, Chhatisgarh, and a Transport Challan was issued for total freight charge of ₹ 23,000/-in consideration of transportation of goods from Raipur to Raxaul. The said transportation was further supported by integrated incoming form, i.e. Form-D-IX ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner was required to pay heavy charges to the truck owner every day of detention of truck with the goods lying thereon. 9. The order, dated 21.12.2013, raising the demand of ₹ 60,795/-, by way of tax and penalty under Section 60(4)(b), is under challenge in this writ application. The petitioner submits that the very seizure of the truck and the timber was bad, for, according to the petitioner, no seizure can be made on mere suspicion and unless there are reasonable grounds for raising suspicion; more so, when the petitioner had produced all the relevant documents. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the search and seizure were proper and just. The petitioner had deliberately got the logs unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot violated Sub-Section (2) of Section 60 of the Act inasmuch as it has produced all the requisite papers making complete and correct declaration of the goods being transported. 13. From perusal of materials on record, the petitioner is correct in pointing out before this Court that the petitioner had submitted all the relevant documents relating to transportation of goods i.e. Bill, Transport Challan, Suvidha Incoming Form in Form D-IX giving the entire description of the goods and its value. 14. Nonetheless, if the competent authority has reasonable ground to suspect that the declaration is not complete and correct, seizure can be effected. Section 60(4) authorizes the competent authority to seize vehicle along with goods for due ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
