2010 (3) TMI 1022

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inery was imported through air at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport for sending the same to Madhya Pradesh using West Bengal as corridor. After clearance of the consignment at Kolkata airport the petitionercompany obtained transit declaration (T. D.) No. 163 dated May 2, 2008 declaring that the goods would go out of West Bengal within 21 days, that there might be trans-shipment of the goods at 88 Pathuria Ghat Street, Kolkata and that the vehicle carrying the said consignment would exit through Chichira check-post. As no transit declaration was produced at the exit check-post for endorsement within a period of 21 days and no exit confirmation was received, the Sales Tax Officer, Central Section (respondent No. 1) issued....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eferred a revision before the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Central Section. At the time of hearing of the revision the representative of the petitioner presented a written submission along with documents to support its claim of exit of the goods from West Bengal. The Joint Commissioner by his order dated August 19,2009 dismissed the revision and confirmed the penalty order. Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Tribunal with the present application. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the violation was just technical and the goods, having been duly sent out of West Bengal, presumption of sale within West Bengal, if any, was rebutted. According to him, as there was no possibility of suffe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st recorded that the petitioner presented written submission with some documents in support of such claim. Respondent No. 2 proceeded on the basis that as there was violation, there should be maximum penalty. Such approach of respondent No. 2 is not correct. Exit of the goods is definitely a relevant and important consideration. Those who have not produced T.D. for endorsement and cannot prove that the goods were actually sent out, and those violators who can prove that the goods were actually sent out, cannot be equated for the purpose imposition of punishment. The revisional authority committed material irregularity in not considering such claim and in not recording a finding thereon. Respondent No. 1 had not accepted the petitioner's ....