Transit seizure requires evidence linking fake documents to the dealer's goods; unsupported allegations cannot sustain penalty.

Goods in transit may be seized under transit-control provisions only when the alleged defect in way bills or challans is supported by material connecting it to the consignor's goods. Bare assertions that documents are fake, or an uncorroborated alleged confession by a driver, are insufficient where no witness attests the seizure, no explanation is recorded in a language understood by the driver, and no nexus is shown between the challenged documents and the dealer's consignments, especially where the vehicle carries mixed goods. On that reasoning, the seizure and consequential penalty were quashed as unsustainable, and the refund was directed to the transporter.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods in transit and the consequential penalty under section 73 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 read with rule 214C of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 were sustainable.

Analysis: The transport of goods from West Bengal to outside the State required compliance with the prescribed way bill or challan requirements. The seizure, however, was founded only on a bare assertion that some challans appeared to be fake and on an alleged confession by the driver, without any explanation as to why the challans were treated as fake. No witness was made to sign the seizure on the alleged confession, no endorsement showed that the grounds were explained to the driver in a language understood by him, and no material was recorded to connect the alleged fake challans specifically with the petitioner's consignments, especially when the truck carried consignments of others as well. The Tribunal also noted that the seizure preceded the insertion of sub-section (2A) in section 73, and that an omnibus allegation without supporting material could not justify seizure in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The seizure and the consequential penalty were held to be unsustainable and were quashed. The question was decided in favour of the petitioner, though refund was directed to be made to the transporter and not to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded on the merits, and the impugned seizure and penalty did not survive judicial scrutiny.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure of goods in transit under the sales tax transit-control provisions cannot be sustained on vague and unsupported allegations of fake documents or an uncorroborated alleged confession, particularly where the record does not establish a direct nexus between the alleged defect and the dealer's consignments.

---