SHRI KAMAL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner, who is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in course of his normal business of sale and supply of "supari" had sent a total of 320 bags of "supari" on March 7, 2003 to its consignment agents in Rajasthan by truck No. RJ-07G-4874. The aforesaid goods while in transit were seized by the Inspector of Taxes of Barpeta Road and as it would be evident from the seizure memo dated March 17, 2003 the grounds of seizure were stated as follows :

(2.) AFTER seizure of the supari in transit belonging to the petitioner in the manner indicated above, on March 20, 2003 the Superintendent of Taxes, Barpeta Road after recording a finding that the petitioner "had an unaccounted stock of 320 bags of Assam chikni supari" determined an amount of Rs. 1,35,168 as tax payable in respect of the above goods along with penalty of Rs. 4,05,504. The writ petitioner having been called to pay the aforesaid two amounts as a pre-condition for release of the seized goods, the instant approach to this Court has been made wherein by an interim order this Court had stayed the operation of imposition of penalty but had required the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,35,168 on account of tax which amount has since been paid.

(3.) IN so far as the levy of tax by the impugned order dated March 20, 2003 is concerned, the argument advanced is that the statute nowhere contemplates levy of tax at the stage of seizure and therefore the levy of tax amounting to Rs. 1,35,168 is plainly contrary to the provisions of the Act. The Revenue has not filed any counter but the records in original have been placed before the court including the verification note of the Inspector of Taxes on the basis of which the order dated March 20, 2003 has been passed. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Additional Advocate-General, Assam appearing for the State has contended that failure to mention the correct price of the items/goods in transit and a definite under-valuation of the sale price in the invoices must be construed by the court to be an instance where the goods are not properly accounted for. According to the learned Additional Advocate-General, merely because the quantity of the goods and the variety thereof is ascertainable, the same should not lead to an inference that the goods have been properly accounted for, unless the sale price thereof is also correctly mentioned in the invoices. As in the instant case the supari in question was grossly under-valued disclosing an attempt at evasion of taxes, learned Additional Advocate-General has contended that the power of seizure and imposition of penalty has been rightly and correctly exercised.