2002 (1) TMI 1270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Act, 1987, praying for setting aside the order of penalty passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on September 6, 1999 and February 11, 2001 respectively. 2.. On August 5, 1999, the Truck No. HR 46/9855 loaded with the consignment of goods being imported by the petitioner was seized at Duburdih Check-post on the ground that the way bill did not correctly show the weight of the consignment of goods....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the way bill was wrong and could not be seized. The order of penalty however, was not challenged before the honourable High Court. 4.. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, i.e., respondent No. 1 initiated penalty proceeding and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,45,870 by an order dated September 6, 1999. The said order was confirmed also in revision by respondent No. 2 by an order dated Octobe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es covered by the way bill and 20 boxes of stainless steel circles ought not have been seized. The total number of boxes loaded on the truck did not vary with the way bills produced by the driver of the truck. The orders of penalty therefore, are bad in law and liable to be set aside. 6.. The learned State Representative submits that the authority may be directed to act in accordance with law a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... allegedly found by the respondent No. 1 in the goods and the weight as declared in the way bill. As no challenge has been thrown to the penalty order as yet, we dispose of this writ application by directing the respondents to release so much of the consignment as was covered by the weight as mentioned in the way bill to the petitioner subject to the petitioner executing a bond covering the amount....