Transport declaration liability under sales tax law requires reasonable opportunity at check-post and cannot be shifted to the goods owner.

Under section 14C of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and rule 90AA(1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, the declaration in form XXXC was required from the transporter for movement of notified goods through West Bengal. The text states that, where the driver sought time at the first check-post to arrange the transporter's agent and obtain the form, immediate detention was not justified if reasonable opportunity to comply was available. It also states that penalty liability under section 14C rests on the transporter, not the owner of the goods, and that proceedings against the owner amounted to an assumption of jurisdiction not authorised by the statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether detention of the vehicle and imposition of penalty for non-production of form XXXC were valid when the transporter sought time to obtain the form at the first check-post; (ii) Whether proceedings under section 14C could be initiated against the owner of the goods instead of the transporter.

Issue (i): Whether detention of the vehicle and imposition of penalty for non-production of form XXXC were valid when the transporter sought time to obtain the form at the first check-post.

Analysis: Section 14C of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and rule 90AA(1) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 regulate movement of notified goods through West Bengal and require the transporter to make the prescribed declaration in form XXXC. The facts that the driver asked for time to bring the transporter's agent for obtaining the form were not denied and were treated as admitted. The form being available at the check-post itself, the transporter should have been given a reasonable opportunity to complete the declaration before detention. In these circumstances, immediate detention was not justified.

Conclusion: The detention of the vehicle and the consequential penalty were illegal and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under section 14C could be initiated against the owner of the goods instead of the transporter.

Analysis: The statutory scheme makes the obligation to furnish the declaration and incur penalty rest on the transporter, and the explanation to section 14C defines transporter to include the person in control of the vehicle. The provision does not authorize proceedings against the owner of the goods merely because the goods were being carried in the vehicle. The notice and penalty proceedings against the owner therefore amounted to an assumption of jurisdiction not conferred by the statute. An admission on a question of law before the revisional authority did not bar the applicants from challenging that legal error.

Conclusion: Proceedings and penalty against the owner of the goods were without jurisdiction and invalid.

Final Conclusion: The impugned detention, penalty order, and revisional order were set aside, and the penalty amount was directed to be refunded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute casts the declaration obligation and penalty liability on the transporter, proceedings cannot be sustained against the owner of the goods, and detention for non-production of a form available at the check-post is unjustified if reasonable opportunity to comply is denied.

---