Clerical error in transport documents cannot justify seizure or penalty when contemporaneous papers support lawful goods movement.

Seizure of goods and penalty under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 were held unsustainable where an erroneous date in the road challan was only a clerical discrepancy and the endorsed way-bill, invoice, consignment note and declaration under rule 214B supported lawful movement of the goods. The contemporaneous documents showed entry into West Bengal through the check-post in the same vehicle, so the suspicion that the intercepted goods were not covered by the earlier import papers was found too remote to justify detention or penalty. The penalty was set aside and the amount recovered was directed to be refunded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods and the penalty imposed under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 were sustainable when the road challan contained an erroneous date but the endorsed way-bill, invoice, consignment note and declaration under rule 214B supported the movement of goods.

Analysis: The disputed goods were accompanied by the endorsed way-bill and the prescribed declaration, and the other contemporaneous documents also showed that the goods had entered West Bengal through the check-post in the same vehicle. The only infirmity noticed by the seizing officer was the mention of November instead of December in the challan-cum-delivery note. That discrepancy was capable of being treated as a clerical mistake, particularly when the year and the surrounding documents tallied. The suspicion that the goods intercepted later were not the goods covered by the earlier import documents was found to be remote and not a reasonable basis for seizure or penalty. The Tribunal treated the endorsed way-bill and the prescribed declaration as sufficient safeguards against tax evasion on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The seizure and the penalty were not sustainable and were set aside, with a direction to refund the penalty recovered from the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The goods were wrongly detained on an unsupported suspicion, and the penalty could not be maintained in the presence of satisfactory contemporaneous import and transit documents.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure and penalty for alleged mismatch in transport documents cannot be sustained where the discrepancy is a clerical one and the surrounding contemporaneous documents establish lawful movement of the goods, since suspicion must be reasonable and supported by material.

---