TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....business as transporter as well as courier. In the course of business, the petitionertransporter was engaged by M/s. Ingram Micro India (P) Ltd., Navi Mumbai, for transporting 1771 pieces of mobile phones to their another business place at Bhubaneswar. The petitioner prepared air way bill on the basis of the invoices which were handed over by the said consignor at Mumbai. The said air way bill contains the invoice number of the consignor and the number of packages containing 1771 pieces of mobile phones. The State of West Bengal was used as a corridor for the purpose of the said transportation by the petitioner's own aircraft. The above transported goods thus reached Kolkata Air Port (N. S. C. Bose) on May 10, 2005. The petitioner then subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The respondent filed A.O. and the contention of the respondent is that the declaration as made before the Sales Tax Officer, Air Port Check-post mentioned the goods as computer software but the goods which were ultimately found were mobile phone sets at the time of interception at the last check-post at Howrah Railway Station. 1771 pieces of mobile sets were found but the petitioner failed to produce requisite document at the Howrah Station. The invoice number of the mobile phone set was mentioned in the transit declaration which was issued to the petitioner to carry computer software, not mobile phone sets. The petitioner thus used unfair means to carry such goods for which no transit declaration was issued. The petitioner obviously violat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 80 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with rules 121 to124 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. Admittedly, a declaration as per rule 121 is required to be made on the body of the consignment note or on a document of like nature in the form appended to rule 121. As per sub-rule (2) of rule 121, such declaration shall be produced along with a copy of invoice, consignment note or delivery note before the concerned officer at the first check-post. The first check-post authority, as per rule 122, shall countersign the declaration as produced before him in respect of the goods being transported and the said declaration and other documents shall be returned to the transporter after recording in the register the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that in this case, the petitioner-transporter failed to satisfy the authority at the last check-post, i.e., at the Howrah Station, as the declaration that was produced did not tally with the goods carried which were mobile phone sets of 1771 pieces though the transit declaration was for carriage of computer software. Learned advocate for the petitioner likes to stress that this mistake came up as in the first check-post, i.e., Dum Dum Air Port Check-post, the goods were erroneously described as computer software in place of the actual, i.e., the mobile phone sets. He says that this error is apparent since the invoice No. 425000269 finds due mention in the annexure "A" (Page Nos. 11 to 13), (the delivery challans) as well as in the air way ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....together--one is mobile phone and other is computer software. So, the principle of the ruling is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In the case decided by this Tribunal, the petitioner after reaching the destination himself brought to the notice of the sales tax authority here that the transporter forgot to get the declaration endorsed at the last check-post in West Bengal due to ignorance of the driver and the consignment was not admittedly sold in West Bengal and reached the destination in Mumbai. The Tribunal in such circumstances directed the authority imposing penalty to rehear the petitioner and to pass a fresh order imposing a token amount of penalty. That is not of course the instant case here. The petition....