2005 (5) TMI 617 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds vehicle seizure for tax evasion despite permanent registration, affirms penalty, allows reduction request.

Palriwal Hydrocarbons & Chemicals Private Limited and another Versus Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kharagpur Range and others

Palriwal Hydrocarbons & Chemicals Private Limited and another Versus Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kharagpur Range and others - [2005] 142 STC ... Issues:Seizure of vehicles for alleged tax evasion; Requirement of way-bill for entry into West Bengal; Applicability of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994; Legal authority to intercept vehicles and demand documents; Justification of seizure and penalty proceedings.Analysis:The petitioner, a company under the Companies Act, purchased two Tata Diesel Vehicles and faced grievance when the vehicles were seized by the Commercial Tax Officer in West Bengal. The vehicles, purchased in Jharkhand, were permanently registered as tankers and brought to West Bengal for fitting tankers. The petitioner argued that as the vehicles were permanently registered, there was no need for a way-bill to enter West Bengal, and the seizure was unjustified under section 70 of the 1994 Act.The State authorities contended that the vehicles were merely chassis without tankers and were considered goods under the Act. They argued that the entry of such goods into West Bengal required a way-bill, and the seizure was justified due to the absence of this document. The authorities highlighted the need for proper documentation for the transport of goods under the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995.The Court considered the legal provisions under Rule 210 and other relevant rules, which empower authorities to intercept vehicles and demand necessary documents, including a way-bill, for goods entering West Bengal. The failure of the drivers to produce valid documents upon interception led to the seizure of the vehicles and initiation of penalty proceedings. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the seizure and penalty proceedings were justified under the law.The Tribunal's order was affirmed, dismissing the petitioner's application and upholding the penalty imposed. The Court noted that the petitioner had the option to request a reduction in the penalty amount, but no further grievances were raised. The judgment concluded without any costs imposed on the parties, and certified copies of the order were to be provided upon request.In a separate concurring judgment, Justice ALOKE CHAKRABARTI agreed with the decision to dismiss the writ application, thereby supporting the Tribunal's ruling on the seizure and penalty proceedings related to the vehicles in question.