TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (8) TMI 501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tched by its (the applicant's) Delhi office by post; but due to postal delay the same were received by the applicant's Calcutta office only on September 8, 1992. The Delhi office instructed the transporter that the truck carrying the consignment should not enter Duburdih check-post unless the permit required under law was produced by the Calcutta office through its clearing agent. The applicant after receiving the aforesaid documents filed an application on September 9, 1992 before the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO), Assessment Wing, disclosing full particulars of consignment, for issue of permit in form XXX and such permit was granted on the same day. On the same day the applicant came to know that the truck had already been intercepted on September 4, 1992 and the goods on the truck were seized on September 6, 1992 at Duburdih check-post. The driver of the truck was served with a notice issued in the name of the transporter asking to show cause against the proposed imposition of penalty. On September 21, 1992, the applicant submitted a representation averring, inter alia, that permit could not be obtained earlier due to late receipt of the documents but after hearing the applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther asserted by the respondents that the applicant cannot have any further grievance as regards the quantum of penalty because the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have successively reduced it. Accordingly, the respondents urge that the application of the applicant may not be sustained as there is no merits in the contention of the applicant as made out in its application. 4.. The issue that calls for decision here is whether there are just and cogent reasons for quashing the orders of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 after allowing the application of the applicant. 5.. The undisputed positions are that the spare parts of excavator are notified goods, the vehicle carrying consignment of spare parts in question was intercepted and detained on September 4, 1992 and the goods were seized on September 6, 1992 and that either at the time of interception or at the time of the seizure there was no permit for the importation of the consignment into West Bengal. Therefore, the validity of the seizure of the excavator spare parts involved is beyond question. Shri S.K. Chakraborty, learned Advocate for the applicant also concedes that the validity of the seizure is not an issue in this case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt's failure to obtain betimes the permit of the disputed consignment of goods was due to postal delay in receiving the consignment notes and other documents relating to the involved goods. But circumstances here are such that we are unable to lend credence to the story of bona fide conduct. A bona fide action presupposes its accompaniment with due care, caution and diligence. The postal envelope carrying the document relating to the impugned consignment was not produced at any stage as an evidence of delay in delivery of the same on the applicant. 7.. According to the applicant's own case, it received information from its Delhi office that excavator spare parts contained in eight boxes and sixteen loose pieces were being despatched to the applicant's office in Calcutta. So, the applicant was quite aware of the requirement of a permit for such importation. It can be reasonably expected that after receiving such information the applicant would keep track of the movement of the concerned consignment so as to complete the legal formalities incidental to such importation. This plea of postal delay involves factual issue, decision whereon of the competent authority can hardly be i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the instant case, the Inspector at the check-post just chanced upon the real identity of the goods for which endeavour was made by applicant to pass the same as "machinery parts". This fact clearly makes the story of bona fide act unworthy of credence. 11.. From the circumstances discussed above we are unable to hold that the applicant acted with diligence or its conduct in transporting the excavator parts was above board. Misled by the wrong description of the impugned goods, had the check-post authorities allowed the consignment to pass through the check-post, the entire consignment or excavator spare parts might have gone unrecorded in the records of the taxing authority and would have eventually dodged the taxing net. 12.. It is submitted by Shri Chakraborty that on the earlier occasions the applicant imported excavator parts with appropriate sales tax permits and hence there is no reason why would the applicant-company not obtain the same on this occasion also, had the documents relating to the consignment reached the applicant's office in time. Shri Goswami submits that procurement of a permit on an earlier occasion is no guarantee that never such spare parts were or....