https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160380 A way bill was required for the imported consignment under rule 211, but the statutory framework did not provide an effective procedure for the applicant, who was neither a dealer nor a casual trader and had no residence or place of business in West Bengal, to obtain one. The declaration under section 72 and rule 223 was not the correct document for the movement. Because the rules left a procedural lacuna, non-accompaniment of the way bill did not justify penalty under section 71, and the penalty was quashed. The seizure, however, was held valid. en-us Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:18:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160380 A way bill was required for the imported consignment under rule 211, but the statutory framework did not provide an effective procedure for the applicant, who was neither a dealer nor a casual trader and had no residence or place of business in West Bengal, to obtain one. The declaration under section 72 and rule 223 was not the correct document for the movement. Because the rules left a procedural lacuna, non-accompaniment of the way bill did not justify penalty under section 71, and the penalty was quashed. The seizure, however, was held valid. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160380