Way-bill covered goods wrongly detained: penalty action must be confined to the disputed remainder after hearing.

Where a superior court had already held that the portion of goods covered by the way bill was wrongly detained, penalty and seizure based on the full consignment could not stand in that form. The Tribunal therefore limited further action to the disputed remainder, directed release of the covered goods on the terms already ordered, and required the authority to rehear the penalty matter after notice and opportunity of hearing. The remaining goods, if any, were to be treated as seized only for the alleged violation under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders imposing and confirming penalty, and the seizure to the extent covered by the way bill, were liable to be set aside in view of the High Court's direction releasing the covered portion of the consignment and permitting penalty proceedings only for the remaining disputed part.

Analysis: The Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the High Court's earlier order, which had held that detention of the quantity of goods covered by the way bill was wrongful and had directed release of that part of the consignment on execution of a bond. In consequence, the penalty order, which had proceeded on the entire consignment, could not stand in its original form. The Tribunal also directed that the matter be re-heard after notice and opportunity of hearing, and that the remaining portion, if any, be treated as seized for alleged violation of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside to the extent they ed the goods covered by the way bill, and the Assistant Commissioner was directed to release that part of the goods and reopen the penalty proceeding for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded with consequential relief confined to the covered goods and a fresh adjudication on the remaining dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a superior court has held that a specified portion of seized goods was wrongly detained, penalty and confiscatory action based on the entire consignment must be modified accordingly, and the authority must confine further proceedings to the disputed remainder after due hearing.

---