AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (6) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Tax Officer, Sealdah Charge, along with some officers of the department visited godown of the petitioner at 297/1 A.P.C. Road, Calcutta, in the morning and demanded books of account and other documents. The available books including stock books and stock purchase voucher, etc., were shown by the petitioner. Without actual counting, the officer noted as if there has been only physical stock in that godown of 1,214 pieces (1,074 large size and 140 medium size) hides and skins, though actually at that time there had been in total 2,869 pieces of hides and skins in that godown. In order to make a case favourable for them, respondent No. 1, Commercial Tax Officer, Sealdah Charge, recorded wrongly in the name of the petitioner showing as if the petitioner has stated that the goods in the godown had been imported from Bodra, Gujarat, without permit though actually no such statement was ever made by him. The petitioner has been acting as an agent and as such the petitioner does not make purchase from the principal on whose behalf the petitioner sells the goods. The petitioner's statement that there can be no evidence of purchase as such from the principal was not given any weight. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he penalty imposed are lawful. The penalty amount of Rs. 3,75,000 imposed by respondent No. 1 having been reduced by the Assistant Commissioner to Rs. 2,28,000 and the same having been further reduced to an amount of Rs. 1,75,000 by the Deputy Commissioner, the same cannot also be held to be unreasonable or unlawful. 3.. In this case the petitioner used affidavit-in-reply to highlight among others the improbability of doing physical counting work of obnoxious-smelling cow and ox hide pieces by two Bengali Hindu Brahmins, two Bengali Hindu lady officers and other two Bengali Hindu gentlemen only to perform their duty--an official one. It has been also mentioned that the petitioner's signature in Urdu in the seizure report without there being any endorsement of reading out the contents of the report cannot give sanctity to the document--as claimed. Petitioner's alleged acknowledgement as per that report regarding importation from Bodra without permit and his alleged failure to show any document mentioned in the report of respondent No. 1 as such cannot but be taken with a grain of salt. The petitioner has also given elaborately here as well as in the application, the details....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. They found substantial amount of hides and skins which on physical counting came up to 1,074 large size and 140 medium size hides and skins pieces totaling 1,214 pieces valued at 13 lakhs of rupees approximately. Afzal Karim, partner and petitioner here and another Md. Salim stated to be a relative of that partner who were present there stated that the goods have been imported from Bodra, Gujarat. The partner failed to produce purchase bills or way-bills in support of the goods found. He stated that those documents are with Firdaus Alam -- firm's accountant. Even after waiting for half an hour when none turned up with papers and documents demanded, the respondent No. 1 proceeded to seize the goods and prepared a seizure receipt in respect of 1,214 pieces of hides after directing Afzal Karim -- the petitioner to meet with papers and documents -- and after making him custodian of the seized goods. 7.. Power has been given under section 69(b) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 to search any godown, warehouse or any other place in which any goods transported in contravention of section 68 are suspected to be stored. If no disclosure regarding stock of goods found is made an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....skin in the godown related to import of the previous year. The stock found in the godown was physically counted as per the respondent -- though the same is denied by the petitioner. 8.. These are questions of fact and we find three fact-finding authorities have rendered a decision concurrently proving the discrepancy in the documents produced later. In such a case unless the finding is proved to the hilt by the petitioner to be perverse, this Tribunal sitting as a writ court cannot interfere. We are not in a position to accede to the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that no reliance should be placed on the seizure report since that has been subsequently improved. The cutting and overwriting in some portion therein made him to submit the above. On a perusal of the said report we find the same has been written in one sitting and the cutting and over-writing made are not at all unnatural. 9.. The entry in the xerox copy of the stock register (page 4 of the annexure) shows stock of the cow hide on June 10, 1999 was 2,399, but unfortunately there is no entry thereafter in the said stock register though the petitioner claims that on December 8, 1999 the stock was 2....