2005 (5) TMI 621

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 bills. Respondent No. 1 took possession of the said documents and directed the truck to be brought to Durgapur Range office for physical verification of the goods and the documents. The respondent No. 1 issued a detention order dated March 9, 2004. On March 10, 2004 respondent No. 1 gave a seizure receipt to the driver of the vehicle after seazing the goods which included 28 bundles of fibre glass sheets for which there was no coverage in the bills; zip rolls and I.S. core which were of different quantity from what was mentioned in the bill. It was alleged that all the goods were undervalued and there was a previous seizure case against the consignor. The goods were seized under section 70 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e goods were seized without any valid reasons. 6.. According to learned counsel Mr. Chakraborty the goods were wrongly described as fibre glass sheets but actually those were only PVC sheets. He sought to explain a minor variation in the quantity by pointing out that this was quite natural in the circumstances in which the goods were shifted from one place to another. 7.. In response to this the learned counsel for the State authority submitted that it was not correct to say that the truck in question was carrying PVC sheets and no fibre glass sheets had been detected by the seizing authority. 8.. It appears from the materials on record that the detention order was passed on March 9, 2004 and thereafter the authority concerned took....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... without proper verification of the documents. At the time of hearing of the matter Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there was no scope for finding that there had been any variation in the quantity of goods seized. The explanation submitted by Mr. Chakraborty however does not at all inspire confidence of the court. It is also very difficult, if not impossible, to discard the finding of the authority that there had been actual seizure of fibre glass sheets which do not find mention in any of the documents produced in response to the direction of the authority concerned. Thus, nonmentioning of the materials, being 28 bundles of fibre glass sheets, the variation in the quantity of the goods which were found a....