SWARUP ENTERPRISE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered dealer in terms of Tripura Value Added Tax Act, 2004, hereinafter referred to as "TVAT Act' in short and a licensee under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The licenses as issued under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 for sale, stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribution and the certificate of registration issued under Form -II under Rule 12(1) of TVAT Rules are available at Annexure -1 collectively in the writ petition. The petitioner in the course of her business used to transport drugs from the manufacturer by furnishing a declaration under Form -XXV of the TAVT Rules through the registered transporter, to the Superintendent of Taxes, Churaibari, North Tripura at the time of crossing the barrier. There had been no allegation against the petitioner by the Tax Authority.

(2.) ON 14 -12 -2012 when a consignment of medicines having No. 4884, dated 5 -12 -2012 along with other goods were being transported by M/s. National Roadways Corporation by their Vehicle No. AS -01 -BC -5418, the said truck was detained abruptly at Chakmaghat under the Teliamura police station by the respondent No. 4. The said officer thereafter seized the consignment of "Indikof C Cough Syrup in six cartons containing 600 bottles on the purported ground of illegal attempt of export through a route other that prescribed under Section 7(c) of the Customs Act, 1962 and in violation of Sections 11C, HE Ibid, read with Export Control Order No. 1/88 issued under Sections 3A(1), 3(2) and 4 of the Import Export (Control) Act, 1947, Foreign Trade (Dev. & Reg.) Act, 1992 and Section 12(1)/13(2) of Control Act, 1992 and Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and in violation of the Customs Notification No. , dated 2 -4 -2008 and the Customs Notification No. , dated 25 -3 -2008. Grounds of the said seizure are available in the seizure list dated 14 -12 -2012 (Annexure -P/2 to the writ petition.)

(3.) MR . B.N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has quite succinctly submitted that there is no allegation of non -production of the transport voucher as required under Section 11K(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 which provides that: