TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pack Pvt. Ltd., for a total price of Rs. 82,500. The petitioner obtained an order from one M/s. Kanchan Oil Industries for supply of corrugated paper boxes. He consigned the said 7,500 pieces of disputed goods to the purchaser at Jhargram in the district of Midnapore in a vehicle bearing Registration No. WGH 8618. The petitioner duly handed over the invoice, challan and the declaration as required under rule 214B of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 framed under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, to the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. When the vehicle was on its way to Jhargram, the sales tax officials of the Durgapur Range intercepted the vehicle on November 25, 2002. According to the petitioner the driver produced all the required....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on blank order sheets and the order was recorded on those blank sheets subsequently with back date. Copy of the order under section 70 of the Act of 1994 as served on the petitioner clearly indicates that the said order was recorded on a sheet of paper after obtaining signatures of the driver on the blank sheet as the writing was over the signature of the driver. On receipt of the notice in form 44, the petitioner submitted written objection in the penalty proceeding, inter alia, pointing out that he had not contravened any condition contained in rule 214B of the Rules of 1995. The concerned CTO however passed an order on December 26, 2002 holding hat all the transactions of corrugated paper boxes were fake and imposed a penalty of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded in the order dated November 25, 2002 after those were collected in order to make out a case for seizure of the goods and initiation of penalty proceeding. The materials on record reveal that on November 25, 2002 there was no valid ground to detain the vehicle, to seize the goods and to initiate a proceeding under section 71 of the Act of 1994 inasmuch as all the requirements under rule 214B were duly complied with. Section 68 of the Act of 1994 forbids any person to transport any consignment from one place to another except in accordance with the restrictions and conditions prescribed for the purpose. Rule 214B of the Rules of 1995 prescribes such restrictions and conditions for transporting goods from one place to another place with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enalty. Sections 68, 70 or 71 of the Act of 1994 and the relevant Rules framed thereunder deal with a particular consignment which is on transit. Irregularity in any previous transaction or suspicion about any past transaction cannot be taken into consideration while deciding whether the detained goods should be seized or penalty should be imposed. For the purpose of seizure under section 70 of the Act of 1994 the authorised officer is to confine himself to the intercepted consignment only and is not permitted to extend his consideration to previous transactions. In this connection reference may be made to decision of the Karnataka High Court in S.L.V. Constructions v. Commercial Tax Officer, Mangalore reported in [2006] 144 STC 563. Thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....coming within the ambit of section 3 thereof. The Supreme Court in Sovintorg (India) Ltd. v. State Bank of India, New Delhi AIR 1999 SC 2963 has made it clear that even where section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code has not been specifically made applicable to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, general principles contained in section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code can be adopted to award interest. The Supreme Court observed therein: "We, however, find that the general provisions of section 34 being based upon justice, equity and good conscious (conscience) would authorise the redressal forums and commissions to also grant interest appropriately under the circumstance of each case. Interest may also be awarded in l....