Mandatory way bill compliance cannot be displaced by newspaper-reported assurance; seizure and penalty were upheld.

Production of the prescribed way bill remained mandatory for movement of taxable goods under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act and Rules, and alleged ministerial assurance reported in newspapers could not override that statutory requirement. Newspaper reports were treated as hearsay and did not prove the claimed assurance, so no estoppel arose against the statute. The non-production of the way bill therefore constituted a material contravention and justified seizure and penalty. The challenge to the quantum of penalty also failed because no legally sustainable ground was shown for interference once the breach stood established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether seizure and penalty for non-production of way bill could be avoided on the basis of alleged ministerial assurance reported in newspapers; (ii) whether the quantum of penalty imposed required interference.

Issue (i): Whether seizure and penalty for non-production of way bill could be avoided on the basis of alleged ministerial assurance reported in newspapers.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under sections 68 to 71 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and rules 210 and 211 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 made production of the prescribed document mandatory for the movement of taxable goods. The assurance relied upon was found to be vague, uncertain and unsupported by proof. A representation of that nature could not displace a statutory mandate, and no estoppel can operate against a statute. Newspaper reports were treated only as hearsay and could not prove the truth of the alleged assurance. The failure to produce the way bill therefore remained a material contravention.

Conclusion: The seizure and penalty were justified and the challenge to liability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the quantum of penalty imposed required interference.

Analysis: The plea against the rate of penalty was not substantiated by any legally sustainable ground. Since the underlying contravention was established and the asserted excuse was rejected, there was no basis to reduce or interfere with the penalty merely on the strength of the newspaper reports.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the quantum of penalty.

Final Conclusion: The statutory breach stood proved, the alleged newspaper-based assurance afforded no defence, and the penalty order was upheld in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Vague newspaper reports of an alleged governmental assurance cannot operate as estoppel against mandatory tax provisions, and newspaper reports are not proof of the truth of the facts stated in them.

---