RAMESH KR JADAV Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application in RN -10 of 2001 along with applications in RN -11 of 2001 and 12 of 2001 has been filed under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 wherein seizure of goods by respondent No. 1 on December 25, 2000 has been challenged and prayer has been made for quashing the said seizure.

(2.) IN the affidavit -in -opposition the existence of the transport company, namely, Goldstar Roadways, has been doubted though the fact of presentation of the required documents before the Chichira check -post authorities and the allowing by the said authorities for further movement of the vehicle stand admitted. It has been contended that the vehicle had been detained at 5 p.m. on December 23, 2000 by respondent No. 1 for verifying documents which were taken from the petitioner -driver. But the driving licence was not taken. The driver -petitioner made himself scarce and appeared before him only as late as on January 1, 2001. So there was no scope to intimate him about the seizure. After detention, telephonic enquiry with Jamsolghat check -post authority revealed that the vehicle in question had not passed through that check -post either on December 22, 2000 or December 23, 2000. The driver having fled away the matter could not, be verified. A contact over phone was also made with the C.T.O., Cuttack -1 and the respondent No. 1 came to know that the consignor is not a registered dealer there. So, consignor being false, the invoice, consignment note, etc., cannot also, but be false. On receipt of such telephonic report the respondent was satisfied that there has been contravention in the matter of complying with the formalities as enjoined in Rule 212(9) and 212(10)(b) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. Then the goods were seized on December 25, 2000 and a seizure report in presence of a witness was made on December 25, 2000 as the driver fled away. It was only on January 1, 2001 the driver appeared. The requirement of handing over the seizure list to him became fruitful only on that date. The goods were given in safe custody of the driver as he opted to be custodian of the goods. As a matter of fact every document had been kept by the respondent after seizure. Therefore, it is contended that the seizure in this case has been lawfully made and the application should be dismissed.

(3.) ONLY question for consideration is whether the seizure dated December 25, 2000 is lawful or not.