TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (3) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the declaration in form IV consignment note was also submitted at the said check-post. Respondent No. 1 after making physical verification of the goods increased the value declared by the applicant and levied a tax of Rs. 6,103. The applicant paid the tax and after such payment the said truck moved towards Calcutta. It was intercepted by respondent No. 2 and on his direction the truck was taken to the campus at Commercial Tax Building at 14, Beliaghata Road. On December 20, 1994 the applicant received a notice from respondent No. 2 and he was asked to appear on December 21, 1994 for physical verification of the goods in the said truck. Though the applicant had gone there on that date, he was told by respondent No. 2 that no physical verification was possible on that day. On 23rd December, 1994 the applicant received a notice in form VI for assessment under section 14(3) of the Act of 1972. In the said notice it was alleged that the applicant brought goods without payment of tax under the said Act and the applicant was directed to appear on January 2, 1995 and to produce papers in connection with the entry of the goods and to show cause against a proposed assessment under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 2,22,728 as tax and penalty under section 14(3) of the Act of 1972 and also a notice of demand for Rs. 1,227 in form X issued on December 30, 1994 under section 17(1) of the said Act. 3.. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by respondent No. 2 on behalf of the respondents. The respondents' case, in short, is that on December 20, 1994 truck No. UGE 797 was intercepted near Chitpur bridge and on preliminary verification it appeared that entry tax had been evaded and so the truck was brought to the Commercial tax building for physical verification. On December 21, 1994 an inventory of goods was prepared on the basis of physical verification in presence of the representative of the dealer M/s. Bengal Road Service in whose name the documents were found to have been prepared. On physical verification and on scrutiny of the documents it was found that the truck contained 239 packages of various goods, viz., locks, G.I. pipe fittings, dress hooks, iron plungers, joint boxes, hardware goods, etc. The applicant had declared the number of packages at the check-post as 181. Several packages declared were not in the truck. The dealer made no declaration in respect of 168 packages and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith section 17(1) of the Act of 1972 on December 30, 1994 for a sum of Rs. 1,227 on account of short levy on the same ground that the principles of natural justice have not been adhered to while making the demand. Respondents' learned Advocate, Mr. S.N. Bose has contended that the dealer had in fact submitted an explanation by a letter dated December 26, 1994 in response to the notice in form VI issued under rule 16(6) of the Entry Tax Rules and on December 30, 1994 the assessment was completed as the dealer requested for instant completion of assessment. As regards the demand for short levy under section 17(1) of the Act of 1972, Mr. S.N. Bose, learned Advocate for the respondents has contended that on December 30, 1994 the dealer verbally requested for furnishing a full and complete demand in respect of his liability and so he was served with a notice of demand in form X on the same day for a sum of Rs. 1,227 on account of short levy of entry tax. Mr. Sumit Kumar Chakraborty, applicant's learned Advocate has drawn our attention to the applicant's contention in paragraph 10 of the application and has contended that though by the notice in form VI dated January 2, 1995 was fixed fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r documents for the purposes of inspection for determining the amount of short levy and fixing a date not less than 10 days from the date of notice for preferring objections and adducing evidence in support thereof. The relevant rules therefore clearly require the assessing authority to give an opportunity of hearing both in the case of causing entry of goods without payment of tax under section 14(3) and also making short payment of tax either on account of inadvertence, error or misconstruction on the part of the prescribed authority or on account of mis-statement of the dealer as to the quantity or description or value of the goods. The statement of evasion of tax prepared by respondent No. 2 on December 23, 1994 is actually an assessment of tax and calculation of short levy. There is no difference between the assessment and calculation done on December 23, 1994 and the demands formally made on December 30, 1994. It is not the respondents' case that assessment was actually done on December 30, 1994 ignoring the statement prepared on December 23, 1994. The respondents have made annexure of the proceedings under sections 14(3) and 17(1) of the Act of 1972 (annexure "Y"). The proce....