BHABANESWAR SINGH Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CENTRAL SECTION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order dated July 14, 2000 passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Case No. RN-168 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The petitioner is a registered dealer both under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It placed an order with Eastern Trading Company, Mangalore, for 10,050 kgs., of betelnut packed in 134 bags. The said consignment was sent through Assam Carriers (P) Ltd. In the check-post waybills and other documents accompanying the consignment were verified. However at Andul a purported inspection was made and on the ground that the waybill is under-invoiced, the goods were seized. Questioning the legality of such seizure the application was filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal did not go into the merits of the matter but directed as under :

(2.) Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned counsel submits that the main purpose of seizure is to check evasion of tax. By reason of under-invoicing his client did not benefit itself by way of short payment of tax but evasion if any was on the part of the consignor. The learned counsel would submit that having regard to the provisions of Section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and ratio of Rule 212(9) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 the concerned authority had no jurisdiction to effect any seizure.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent when asked, very fairly stated that there does not exist any provision in the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules for seizure of goods for under-invoicing. The learned counsel drew our attention to the effect that in Tamil Nadu there exists such provision in respect whereof reliance must be placed in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. P.T. Enterprises. Section 68 of the Act and Rule 212(9) of the Rules read thus :