1999 (4) TMI 591

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a penalty of Rs. 4,86,486, later reduced to Rs. 4,00,000 by the revisional authority. Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned Advocate for the applicant, conceded during his arguments that there was no search, but the expression "search and seizure" was used in the application in a loose sense. 2.. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that it carries on the business of importing umbrella panels and parts from foreign countries by sea. Though its place of business is at Delhi, it usually imports the goods through Calcutta port being the nearest port to Delhi. The consignment in question arrived at the Calcutta port on December 31, 1997. Customs duty was paid on January 20, 1999 and then the goods were stored in the warehouse of the Central Warehousing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central Section. The revision was fixed for hearing on March 18, 1999; but upon a petition filed by the applicant for early hearing, it was heard on February 4, 1999. The revision application was disposed of by respondent No. 2 on the same day by reducing the amount of penalty to Rs. 4,00,000. The seizure and imposition of penalty have now been challenged on various grounds. The seized goods were subsequently released to the applicant after obtaining security by way of bank guarantee to the extent of rupees four lakh. 3.. At the time of hearing, Mr. M.C. Mukhopadhyay, State Representative, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the present application was not maintainable, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itution of India, is the only remedy. That is not at all a correct submission. It was held by a Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Hindusthan Lever Ltd. v. State of West Bengal reported in [1990] 76 STC 155, that the opportunity of being heard as provided in section 7(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954 must not be confined to the question of valuation and quantum of penalty alone. The opportunity should include an opportunity to explain the reason for failure to furnish the relevant document at the moment it was demanded and to show cause against the seizure itself. The relevant provisions of 1994 Act are in pari materia with section 7 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. Hence, the notice that was served in the present ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad appeared before respondent No. 3 (Commercial Tax Officer) on January 28, 1999 and prayed for keeping the seized goods in the vehicle, and that prayer was allowed; then the driver and an employee (Ashok Dhar) of Kapoor & Co., produced the bill of entry, invoice, jetty challan and rent bill of Calcutta Port Trust. Then they stated that the goods were to be despatched to Delhi. But according to respondent No. 3, they failed to produce any declaration under section 72 or any way bill. Respondent No. 3 reserved the order which was passed in course of the same day by imposing the penalty. As already said, there was no prayer for advancing the hearing from February 18, 1999 to January 28, 1999. The driver and an employee of the clearing agent o....