Intra-State goods movement under Rule 214B: undervaluation could not justify seizure or penalty where required declarations were produced.

For intra-State movement of goods governed by rule 214B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, the seizing authority could not question the declared value of the consignment or treat alleged undervaluation as a ground for seizure and penalty. The declaration and accompanying documents were produced at interception, and the pre-amendment rule 214B form did not require disclosure of value or rate of goods; the later amendment was not retrospective. Compliance with rule 214B therefore satisfied the statutory requirement under section 68, and the inter-State transfer framework under rule 212 could not be applied. The seizure and penalty were without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the case of an intra-State movement of goods governed by rule 214B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, the seizing authority could question the declared value of the consignment and, on the ground of alleged undervaluation, seize the goods and impose penalty under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The consignment was transported within West Bengal and therefore fell under rule 214B, not rule 212. The declaration and accompanying documents were produced at the interception stage, and the pre-amendment form under rule 214B did not require disclosure of value or rate of the goods. The subsequent amendment adding such a requirement had no retrospective effect. Since section 68 operates through the restrictions and conditions prescribed by the relevant rule, compliance with rule 214B satisfied the statutory requirement. In these circumstances, the officer could not invoke undervaluation as a ground for seizure or penalty, and the attempt to apply the inter-State transfer framework under rule 212 was misplaced.

Conclusion: The seizure and penalty were without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law.

---