KHEM CHAND BOTHRA Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Khem Chand Bothra, claims that he carries on business of resale of various types of packing materials under the name and style "M/s. Jain Packaging" at Mallarpur in the district of Birbhum. In the course of his business the petitioner purchased 7,500 pieces of corrugated paper boxes on August 16, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, "the disputed goods") from one M/s. Aurora Print Pack Pvt. Ltd., for a total price of Rs. 82,500. The petitioner obtained an order from one M/s. Kanchan Oil Industries for supply of corrugated paper boxes. He consigned the said 7,500 pieces of disputed goods to the purchaser at Jhargram in the district of Midnapore in a vehicle bearing Registration No. WGH 8618. The petitioner duly handed over the invoice, challan and the declaration as required under Rule 214B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 framed under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, to the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. When the vehicle was on its way to Jhargram, the sales tax officials of the Durgapur Range intercepted the vehicle on November 25, 2002. According to the petitioner the driver produced all the required documents and there was no valid and lawful reason to detain the vehicle or to seize the said consignment of disputed goods. On receipt of information about such detention, the petitioner sent his son, Hukum Chand Bothra to Durgapur. Immediately on interception the Commercial Tax Officer, Durgapur Range, issued a notice in form 44 to the driver of the vehicle for showing cause on December 26, 2002 against proposed imposition of penalty under Sec. 71 of the Act of 1994. On November 25, 2002 the Commercial Tax Officer passed a purported order of seizure and communicated the order by sending a copy thereof to the petitioner. The petitioner has annexed a xerox copy of the said order as communicated, to this application. Thereafter on the said date itself, i.e., November 25, 2002 the Commercial Tax Officer released the disputed goods for keeping it in the custody of the petitioner.

(2.) It appears that the Commercial Tax Officer (in short, "the CTO") recorded an order dated November 25, 2002 in the order sheet mentioning several informations which could not be available on the said date. The nature of the said order dated November 25, 2002 ex facie shows that either the said order was recorded subsequently with a back date or the allegations contained therein were subsequently incorporated in order to make out a case for initiating a penalty proceeding under Sec. 71 of the Act of 1994.

(3.) It has been alleged that signatures of the driver and son of the petitioner were obtained on blank order sheets and the order was recorded on those blank sheets subsequently with back date. Copy of the order under Sec. 70 of the Act of 1994 as served on the petitioner clearly indicates that the said order was recorded on a sheet of paper after obtaining signatures of the driver on the blank sheet as the writing was over the signature of the driver.