Intra-State goods transit under rule 214B cannot be seized on undervaluation alone; penalty fails without a lawful valuation basis.

Rule 214B governing intra-State movement of goods in West Bengal permits verification of consignment particulars, countersigning of declarations and release of the vehicle, but does not authorise valuation enquiry. Under-invoicing or alleged suppression of market value therefore cannot by itself justify detention or seizure in a case covered by that rule. Where seizure is based on such an impermissible valuation exercise, any penalty founded on the same seizure also fails, especially when the authority discloses no rational basis for the adopted market value, freight or profit assumptions. The practical effect is that detention, seizure, revisional affirmations and penalty cannot stand on that footing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of seizure was legal and valid where the goods were carried in intra-State transit under rule 214B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 and the authority treated undervaluation as a ground for detention and seizure. (ii) Whether the order imposing penalty was lawful when it rested on the same seizure and on a valuation basis not disclosed by the authority.

Issue (i): Whether the order of seizure was legal and valid where the goods were carried in intra-State transit under rule 214B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 and the authority treated undervaluation as a ground for detention and seizure.

Analysis: The regulatory scheme for movement of goods is contained in sections 68, 72 and 73 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and rules 210 to 222A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. For transportation from one place in West Bengal to another, rule 214B governs the verification process. That rule requires verification of the particulars of the consignment, countersigning of the declaration and release of the vehicle. It does not authorise verification of value, unlike the provisions applicable in other situations. On that basis, under-invoicing or alleged suppression of market value could not lawfully furnish a ground for seizure in a case covered by rule 214B. The authority therefore acted beyond its jurisdiction in treating valuation as a matter for seizure.

Conclusion: The seizure order was invalid and unsustainable in law.

Issue (ii): Whether the order imposing penalty was lawful when it rested on the same seizure and on a valuation basis not disclosed by the authority.

Analysis: Once the seizure itself was held to be vitiated, the penalty proceeding could not survive. Independently, the penalty order also failed because it did not disclose any rational basis for the valuation adopted, including the basis for market price, freight, profit or other supporting material. In the absence of a legally sustainable valuation foundation, the penalty could not be justified.

Conclusion: The penalty order was unlawful and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The combined effect of the decision is that the detention, seizure, revisional affirmations and penalty were all quashed, and the seized goods were directed to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: In an intra-State transportation case governed by rule 214B, the authority may verify the particulars of the consignment but cannot treat undervaluation or market-value assessment as a ground for seizure or penalty unless the statute or rule expressly permits such enquiry.

---