Concurrent factual findings sustain seizure and penalty for goods moved without required documentation

Concurrent factual findings that goods were transported without the required permit or supporting documents were treated as sufficient to uphold seizure under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, and no interference was warranted absent perversity. The same contravention supported the penalty, because the record established non-compliance with statutory documentation requirements and lawful movement conditions. The reduced penalty was accepted as not shown to be unreasonable or legally infirm. On that basis, the challenge to both seizure and penalty failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of seizure of the goods was legal and valid. (ii) Whether the order imposing penalty was lawful.

Issue (i): Whether the order of seizure of the goods was legal and valid.

Analysis: The seizure was upheld on the basis that the officers had authority to search and seize goods suspected to have been transported in contravention of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The material on record, including the pre-seizure report, the contemporaneous seizure record, and the later fact-finding orders, showed that the petitioner failed to produce reliable supporting documents for the stock found. The Tribunal found no perversity in the concurrent factual findings that the goods were imported without the requisite permit or valid documents, and declined to interfere with those findings.

Conclusion: The seizure order was held to be legal and valid, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the order imposing penalty was lawful.

Analysis: The penalty was sustained because the same factual findings that justified the seizure also established contravention of the statutory requirements relating to documentation and lawful movement of goods. The Tribunal accepted the reduced penalty as affirmed in revision and found no material to show that the ultimate quantum was unreasonable or unlawful. In the absence of perversity or legal infirmity, interference was refused.

Conclusion: The penalty order was held to be lawful, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to both seizure and penalty failed, and the application was dismissed on contest.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact on seizure and contravention will not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse, and penalty imposed for goods transported or held in violation of the statutory documentation requirements will be sustained where the record supports the contravention.

---