TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding Co. at Netaji Subash Road, Kolkata, for providing adequate space for unloading 5 wagon load of Joist. He also contacted G.R. Goyal of M/s. G.I. Corporation at Netaji Subash Road, Kolkata, for providing similar space for unloading 4 wagons load of Joist, on rent at Rs. 25 per MT per month from the date of delivery of such goods till those are removed. An agreement was also made on March 26, 2002 between G.R. Goyal and the petitioner. 2.. On March 26, 2002/March 27, 2002 more or less 300 MT of joist were unloaded at R.K. Goyal's warehouse and 240 MT of joist at G.R. Goyal's warehouse on March 28, 2002. On April 4, 2002 the respondent No. 1 along with some other officials visited the warehouse and without verifying any documents,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed March 12, 2002 are not required by the petitioner for the purpose of manufacturing sponge iron. The offer to deliver the goods actually was given by IISCO to K.K. Enterprise, though petitioner sent a cheque for Rs. 1,60,000 with declaration that no sales tax to be charged. The seized goods actually were not the identical goods sent by the IISCO, since no marking of IISCO has been found there to identify that the goods were delivered by IISCO. The goods actually delivered by IISCO might have been unloaded at some other godown. The seizure, therefore, rightly was made. RN-221 of 2002 was also heard since identical question of law is involved. 5.. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that search was held illegally without complianc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces, since the goods found in the godown do not bear any marking of IISCO. The petitioner kept the goods in other undisclosed godowns with an intention to evade payment of tax. 7.. The only point for consideration is, if the seizure and penalty proceeding initiated are legal and valid. 8.. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their affidavit-in-opposition admits, "Hence I had no hesitation to admit the ownership of goods seized at undisclosed godown of the company located at the godown of G.I. Corporation Ltd. but the goods seized were not equated with the goods purchased from IISCO for the reasons stated above". There is thus no dispute regarding the ownership of the goods in question. To be sure about identity of the goods, any au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....others godown even without the knowledge of the respondents. We cannot accept such contention of the learned lawyer for the petitioner, inasmuch as, when no time-imit has been prescribed information has to be given regarding any change without any delay or at least before any action is taken by the Revenue for non-compliance of the provision of section 97 and such action can never be anticipated. It was, therefore, the duty of the petitioner to keep the Revenue informed about the place of unloading of the seized goods in question immediate before unloading to prove bona fide intention. Under section 88(h) it is an offence not to furnish any information as required under section 97. It is punishable under law even by confiscation of any seiz....