B K ENTERPRISES Vs. CTO/CENTRAL SECTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the seizure dated December 21, 2001 of 16,470 kg., of "amsatta" in 183 cases and the show cause notice of that very date against imposition of penalty and also the notice of the self -same date demanding payment of penalty of Rs. 1,60,250.

(2.) THE contention of the respondent in the affidavit -in -opposition is that on weighment, the weight of "amsatta" as found in the vehicle had been much higher than the declared weight in the documents including the waybill and the impugned orders were passed in presence of the proprietor B.K. Pal who failed to explain the discrepancy in the weight as stated. It is also stated that the petitioner showed the value of the goods in the document at much less a figure than what was the market price in Kolkata. So both on the ground of undervaluation and of substantial discrepancy in the weight as mentioned above, the seizure was made and the penalty was imposed in presence of both the proprietor and the driver. As such the order should be sustained.

(3.) THE petitioner in the affidavit -in -reply submits that the respondent has failed to annex copy of the penalty order along with the affidavit -in -opposition despite the petitioner's application here and the letters annexure "G" series of January, 2002 addressed to respondent No. 1. Allegations that have been made in the affidavit -in -opposition are not mentioned in the seizure receipt and thus the matters given in the affidavit -in -opposition are products of afterthought. Signature of the applicant appearing in any paper cannot be a ground for believing that the petitioner had been present at the hearing since the tax officer got some blank papers signed by the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 did not make any enquiry from the registered dealer at Andhra Pradesh. It was never the case of the respondent that the documents produced were fake or concocted. Under -weight and undervaluation which are now put forward in the affidavit -in -opposition as ground for seizure were never the case of the respondent at the relevant time of seizure or of the notice of penalty. So the contention of the respondent cannot hold water.