Way bill requirement under sales tax rules could not attract penalty where no workable procedure existed to obtain it.

A way bill was required for the imported consignment under rule 211, but the statutory framework did not provide an effective procedure for the applicant, who was neither a dealer nor a casual trader and had no residence or place of business in West Bengal, to obtain one. The declaration under section 72 and rule 223 was not the correct document for the movement. Because the rules left a procedural lacuna, non-accompaniment of the way bill did not justify penalty under section 71, and the penalty was quashed. The seizure, however, was held valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 71 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 could be imposed for non-accompaniment of a way bill when the goods were required to move under rule 211, but the statutory scheme did not provide an effective mechanism for the applicant, being neither a dealer nor a casual trader and having no residence or place of business in West Bengal, to obtain such way bill.

Analysis: The consignment was imported through West Bengal and, on the facts, rule 211 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 applied, so a way bill was required. The declaration furnished under section 72 and rule 223 was not the correct document for the transaction. However, rules 215, 215A and 215B did not effectively cover the applicant's position, because the applicant was not a registered dealer or casual trader and had no office or residence in West Bengal. The statutory framework therefore disclosed a lacuna: while a way bill was demanded by rule 211, no workable authority or procedure was shown for the applicant to obtain it. In those circumstances, the omission to accompany the goods with a way bill did not justify penal consequence under section 71, although the seizure itself remained valid.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 71 was unwarranted and was quashed, while the seizure was upheld as valid.

---