SURJIT SINGH CHAWLA Vs. CTO CENTRAL SECTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, the petitioner has challenged the seizure of goods under Section 70 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and also the imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,27,428 under Section 71 of the said Act which was reduced to Rs. 1,90,000 by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central Section and thereafter the confirmation of the modified amount of penalty by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central Section.

(2.) THE fact of the case is that the petitioner, Sri Surjit Singh Chawla, is a transporter carrying on business under the trade name of M/s. Chawla Road Lines having its office at 71/1, Colootala Street, Kolkata 700 073 and godown at No. 1/4C,, Khagen Chatterjee Road, Kolkata 700 002. In this godown the goods which are transported by the petitioner are stored. On November 8, 1999, the respondent No. 1, the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section (in short, "C.T.O. CS") visited the godown and found huge stock of taxable goods stored thereat. The respondent No. 1, with the help of Sri Raj Bahadur Singh, the Manager of the godown, prepared an inventory of goods and seized those goods for contravention of Section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. A penalty notice in form 44 under Section 71 of the said Act was served. By an order dated May 5, 2000, the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section imposed penalty of Rs. 2,27,428 under Section 71 of the Act estimating the value of goods at Rs. 7,13,518. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section. On revision, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central Section (in short, "A.C.C.T., C.S.") reduced the amount of penalty to Rs. 1,90,000 by his order dated July 19, 2000. On second revision, the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central Section (in short, "D.C.C.T., C.S.") confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central Section, vide his order dated September 13, 2002. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this revision application before this Tribunal.

(3.) MR . A.K. Nath, learned State Representative has opposed the contention of the learned Advocate and has relied on the affidavit -in -opposition affirmed by the respondent No. 1. It is submitted by the learned State Representative that in total 32 (thirty two) items were seized on November 8, 1999. On the very on set the learned State Representative has denied that the petitioner's representative was asked to produce bills and challans for local transportation as situation did not demand so. The learned State Representative has claimed that the manager of the godown produced xerox copy of few way bills in connection with seized item Nos. 3, 5, 6, 15, 16, 20, 25 and 31, but it was found that those xerox copy of way bills are irrelevant and have no connection with those goods seized. It is further stated by the learned State Representative that there is a provision to allow 48 hours time if any goods vehicle is intercepted, but there is no such provision to allow time if the goods are seized from a warehouse. The learned State Representative has tried to justify the seizure of goods. It is further submitted by the learned State Representative that in pursuant to notice in form 44, the petitioner's representative was heard on December 15, 1999, December 29, 1999, February 18, 2000 and finally on May 5, 2000. In the said hearings only one original way bill bearing No. 1 -2260205 was produced against serial No. 27 of the seized goods. Further it was revealed that the petitioner paid penalty under Section 71 of the Act at the check -post against serial No. 24 of the seized goods. The learned State Representative has pointed out that at the time of hearing, the petitioner produced xerox copy of way bill No. I -1409612,I -1409620,1 -1409627,I -1894076 and I -1894079, but the goods imported against the way bills No. I -1894076 and I -1894079 were already delivered to the importing dealer prior to the date of seizure, i.e., prior to November 8, 1999. Hence, it is argued that the claim of the dealer that the seized item Nos. 15 and 16 were imported against those two way bills cannot be accepted. With respect to valuation of goods, the learned State Representative has submitted that after allowing reasonable discount from the printed M.R.P., the value of goods was estimated at Rs. 7,13,518. The learned State Representative has urged that the amount of penalty was already reduced to Rs. 1.90 lakhs which may be confirmed and the application is liable to be dismissed with cost.