2007 (5) TMI 581

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Asansol Circle, confirming the order imposing penalty under section 77 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 dated May 3, 2005 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Duburdih check-post, with modification. The applicant, a transporter being entrusted with goods at Delhi carried the same by the truck as aforesaid for delivery to the consignee, Eskay Enterprise at Kolkata. On April 29, 2005, the truck was detained at the Duburdih check-post and on April 30, 2005, the Sales Tax Officer of the said check-post seized the goods on the ground that the value of the goods declared in the invoices was less than the market price of the raw materials thereof. Under order dated May 3, 2005 the said Sales Tax O....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1, the Sales Tax Officer, had authority to seize the goods? (ii) Whether the act of seizure was locked? and (iii) Whether respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner committed error in confirming the penalty order with modification? Admittedly, on the date of the impugned act of seizure the Sales Tax Officer had no authority to seize the goods under section 76 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003. At that time only the Commissioner had this authority. But subsequently with retrospective amendment in the provision of section 76 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, respondent No. 1 was also empowered to seize the goods. The defect was cured retrospectively by the said amendment. Now as the provision of section 76 stands, re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hich is actually found in such consignment. Sub-rule (10) of rule 103 provides that where on verification as aforesaid and on searching the vehicle, etc., the value of the goods in any consignment is found to be at variance with the value of the goods disclosed in the way bill or the documents presented in respect of the goods in any consignment is found false or incorrect in respect of, inter alia, value thereof, the goods shall be seized under section 76 of the Act for contravention of the provision of section 73 of the Act". So, for the seizure of the goods on the ground of incorrectness of the documents in respect of the value of the goods, there should be prima facie satisfaction that the invoices were incorrect as regards the va....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ime, it seems that the valuation of the seized goods as determined by the Commercial Tax Officer, Duburdih check-post, is excessive. Therefore I think that it would be fair and just if the values of the plastic goods, aluminium section and SS hinges are assessed at Rs. 30, Rs. 80, and Rs. 60 per kilogram". Why did the revisional authority think the value should have been at the rate as stated in his order? The answer is not available in his order. So, the value assessed by both the seizing officer and the revisional authority are baseless and fancied ones. Citing the unreported judgment of the Bench of two members of this Tribunal in the case No. RN 487 of 2001 Mahendra Singh Aliwalia v. CTO, Central Section passed on January 15, 2007....