Check-post seizure and penalty fail absent actual crossing of the notified barrier; penalty must match seized goods.

Transport restrictions on notified commodities under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act operated only when goods had in fact crossed or passed beyond the notified check-post; absent that jurisdictional fact, seizure and penalty were unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The note also explains that a penalty cannot be assessed on the estimated value of goods not actually seized, because using the value of 143 television sets when only 40 were seized rendered the assessment arbitrary on the material before the authority. The operative principle is that both the statutory basis for seizure and the quantum of penalty must match the actual contravention and the goods seized.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether seizure of the television sets and the consequent penalty under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 were valid when the consignment had not crossed or passed beyond the check-post on the relevant date; (ii) whether the penalty could be sustained when it was computed on the basis of the value of 143 television sets although only 40 television sets had been seized.

Issue (i): whether seizure of the television sets and the consequent penalty under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 were valid when the consignment had not crossed or passed beyond the check-post on the relevant date.

Analysis: The statutory scheme restricted transport of notified commodities under section 6 and empowered seizure and penalty under section 7 only when there was transport in contravention of section 6. The transport restrictions in the rules operated with reference to movement across or beyond the notified area of the check-post. On the facts found, the consignment had not crossed the border of the check-post on the relevant date, and therefore the jurisdictional foundation for seizure and penalty was absent.

Conclusion: The seizure and penalty were not sustainable and were liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the penalty could be sustained when it was computed on the basis of the value of 143 television sets although only 40 television sets had been seized.

Analysis: The penalty order proceeded on the estimated value of the entire consignment, although the admitted seizure was confined to 40 television sets. The value adopted for penalty did not match the goods actually seized, making the assessment arbitrary on the material before the authority.

Conclusion: The penalty assessment was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded and the impugned seizure and penalty orders were quashed, with the petitioners released from the bank guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi: Seizure and penalty for transport of notified commodities under the sales tax regime can be sustained only when the consignment has in fact crossed or passed beyond the notified check-post in contravention of the statutory transport restrictions, and the penalty must be assessed on the goods actually brought within the seizure.

---