https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162159 For intra-State movement of goods governed by rule 214B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, the seizing authority could not question the declared value of the consignment or treat alleged undervaluation as a ground for seizure and penalty. The declaration and accompanying documents were produced at interception, and the pre-amendment rule 214B form did not require disclosure of value or rate of goods; the later amendment was not retrospective. Compliance with rule 214B therefore satisfied the statutory requirement under section 68, and the inter-State transfer framework under rule 212 could not be applied. The seizure and penalty were without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:46:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162159 For intra-State movement of goods governed by rule 214B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, the seizing authority could not question the declared value of the consignment or treat alleged undervaluation as a ground for seizure and penalty. The declaration and accompanying documents were produced at interception, and the pre-amendment rule 214B form did not require disclosure of value or rate of goods; the later amendment was not retrospective. Compliance with rule 214B therefore satisfied the statutory requirement under section 68, and the inter-State transfer framework under rule 212 could not be applied. The seizure and penalty were without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162159