Way-bill counter-signature at nearby check-post required; later production cannot cure non-compliance in sales tax transport seizure cases.

Rule 211(4) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 applies only when no check-post exists in or around the relevant station, steamer station, airport or post office. Where a sales tax check-post was functioning in the vicinity, failure to produce the way-bill and obtain the required counter-signature at entry amounted to non-compliance with rule 211(1) and a breach of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994; later production did not cure the defect. A challenge based on detention before expiry of 48 hours also failed, as the documents were not produced after detention and the seizure was not shown unlawful on that ground. The seizure and penalty proceedings were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of a check-post within the airport premises permitted later production of the way-bill under rule 211(4) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995; (ii) whether the seizure and penalty proceedings could be invalidated on the ground that the goods were detained before expiry of 48 hours.

Issue (i): Whether the absence of a check-post within the airport premises permitted later production of the way-bill under rule 211(4) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995.

Analysis: Rule 211(4) applies only where no check-post has been set up in or around the relevant railway station, steamer station, airport or post office. The expression "around" was treated as significant. Since a Government notification showed that a sales tax check-post was functioning at Dum Dum P.S. with effect from 1 May 1995, the airport could not be treated as a place without a check-post in or around it. The failure to produce the way-bill and obtain the required counter-signature at the check-post at the point of entry amounted to non-compliance with rule 211(1) and, consequently, a breach of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Conclusion: The plea based on rule 211(4) failed, and the seizure and penalty proceedings were held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure and penalty proceedings could be invalidated on the ground that the goods were detained before expiry of 48 hours.

Analysis: Section 70(1) provides that detention shall not exceed 48 hours, but the Court accepted that where the required documents were not produced after detention and a show-cause notice was issued, the early seizure was not shown to be unlawful on that ground.

Conclusion: The challenge based on the 48-hour detention limit was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The seizure order and the consequential notice for penalty proceedings were sustained, and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory rule requires way-bill counter-signature at a check-post established in or around the place of entry, the later production of documents does not cure non-compliance when such a check-post is functioning in the vicinity; such contravention justifies seizure and penalty proceedings under the Act.

---