Disclosure of changed place of business justified seizure and penalty where goods were stored in an undisclosed godown.

Goods stored in another person's godown without prior intimation of the changed place of business were found to be in breach of the disclosure requirements under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The Tribunal examined the lack of satisfactory proof of a bona fide tenancy arrangement and the surrounding circumstances suggesting that the Revenue had been kept uninformed. On that basis, it treated the statutory conditions for seizure and related penal action as satisfied, and the seizure was regarded as legal and valid while the challenge to the penalty proceeding failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of the goods and the consequential penalty proceeding were legal and valid under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The ownership of the seized goods was not in dispute, but the identity of the goods and the circumstances in which they were stored were examined against the statutory obligation to inform the Revenue of a new or changed place of business. The Tribunal found that the goods were kept in another person's godown at Howrah without prior intimation to the Revenue, that the claimed tenancy arrangement lacked satisfactory proof of bona fides, and that the surrounding circumstances indicated an intention to keep the Revenue uninformed. On that basis, the Tribunal held that there was a clear contravention of the statutory provisions requiring disclosure and that the conditions for seizure and consequential penal action were attracted.

Conclusion: The seizure was held to be legal and valid, and the challenge to the penalty proceeding failed.

---