TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 808
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se is invalid and illegal to the extent such amounts of penalty are in excess of 25 per cent of the value of the seized goods as determined. 2.. The registered office of this transport company is at New Delhi, having a branch office at 16, Phears Lane, Calcutta. It has godowns at premises No. 1, Phears Lane, Calcutta, premises No. 81, Nilgunj Road, Kamarhati, at Panagarh and at Durgapur. On July 15, 1988 the respondent No. 1 seized goods from the godown of the applicant No. 1 at Durgapur on the ground of contravention of section 69(b) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in short, "1994 Act"). This seizure is the subject-matter of RN-31 of 2000. When the seizure was challenged before this Tribunal in RN-242 of 1998, by an order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re released upon the applicant No. 1 paying the reduced penalty of Rs. 9,50,000, and then the company filed another revision against the said order of penalty before respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. He disposed of the said revision by order dated November 17, 1999, confirming the revisional order of respondent No. 2. Some other grounds were also taken in the application. One such ground is that with effect from August 11, 1998 certain changes were effected in the 1994 Act in respect of transportation of goods by amending sections 68 to 74 and the rules framed under the 1994 Act. The provision for transportation on the strength of a permit was replaced by a system of way bill with effect from July 1, 1998. Although ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gust 31, 1998 a penalty of Rs. 3,09,454 was imposed on the basis of 40 per cent of the value of the seized goods. In this case also, the learned counsel for applicant No. 1 company confined his contentions to the point that the imposition of penalty in excess of 25 per cent of the value of the seized goods was invalid and illegal. He clearly abandoned all other grounds taken in the application. A revision was filed against the order of penalty dated August 31, 1998. Respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner, confirmed the order of penalty by order dated May 21, 1999. Thereafter, the goods were released on the applicants making payment of the entire amount of penalty of Rs. 3,09,454. Then, another revision application was filed before resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he basis of newspaper reports the statutory provisions regarding imposition of penalty could not be suspended. Following that judgment, we hold that the applicants are not entitled to say that the proceedings for penalty should not have been taken in view of newspaper report about keeping the provisions relating to way-bill in abeyance. 5.. It is true that in the notices in question relating to the impugned proceedings for penalty, it was stated that according to the provisions of the 1994 Act penalty might be imposed not exceeding 25 per cent of the value of the seized goods. On the basis of those notices, the proceedings for penalty were heard and disposed of, but at the time of disposal, penalty was imposed in each case at the rate of....