TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 916
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office in the district of Singhbhum (East) of Jharkhand State. It carries its business of manufacturing steel and iron rods. The petitioner for its manufacturing process imports white kerosene oil from M/s. Annapurna Niwas Pvt. Ltd., Flat No. B5, Door No. 31-32, 81 Sri Ram Krishna Arcade, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, opposite party No. 3. On August 6, 2003, the petitioner while transporting 20 kl of super white kerosene from Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh to Jamshedpur, Jharkhand by a tanker bearing registration No. WB-03-A-9467 under invoice No. 547 dated August 5, 2003 valued Rs. 2,70,400, the same was intercepted at Girisola Unified check gate on August 6, 2003. The STO served show-cause notices dated August 6, 2003, August 11, 2003 and August 21, 2003 upon the driver of the tanker to show cause as to why penalty in addition to tax should not be levied for selling the goods carried in the tanker within the State of Orissa in violation of the declaration furnished under section 16AA of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 on different occasions. In pursuance of the said notices, the petitioner appeared before opposite-p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chase imported super kerosene from it by placing purchase orders. It (O.P. No. 3) being the consignor in the transaction had no authority or business to enquire into the manner of utilization of the goods sold on receipt of cost of goods along with CST and after loading the tanker and dispatching the same. It had also deposited tax realized in the transactions with the appropriate taxing authority. Thus, the O.P. No. 3 cannot be made liable for any alleged selling of kerosene somewhere in the midway and the observation made against it in the impugned order is entirely baseless and damages its business reputation and good will. Moreover, as O.P. No. 3 was not given any opportunity of hearing, the observation made under annexures 1 and 3 are not sustainable. Mr. Raman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite-parties 1 and 2, supporting the orders of the STO and the Additional Commissioner passed under annexures 1 and 3, respectively, vehemently argued that the O.P. No. 2 has rightly imposed tax, surcharge and penalty and there is no infirmity in his order as well as in the order of the Additional Commissioner. The only question that falls for consideration by this court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sonably be necessary for examination of the contents therein and the records relating to the goods under transport by such vehicle or boat, and seize the same if- (a) it is presumed under sub-section (1) that the goods carried by the vehicle or boat, as the case may be, has been sold in the State; or (b) the driver or the other person in-charge of the vehicle or boat, as the case may be, fails, without reasonable cause, to produce or deliver the transit pass required under sub-section (1); or (c) he has reason to believe that the goods carried by the vehicle or boat, as the case may be, has been unloaded, delivered or sold within the State in contravention of the declaration furnished under subsection (1), he may direct the driver or the other person in-charge of the vehicle or boat, as the case may be, to pay within a specified period, by way of penalty, a sum equivalent to twenty per centum of the value of the goods under transport by such vehicle or boat, as the case may be, or rupees twenty thousand, whichever is higher, in addition to tax as otherwise payable under this Act, failing which the officer may confiscate the goods under transport in the prescribed manner to recov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k-post/barrier duly signs the transit pass, keeps the original with him hands over the duplicate and triplicate copies to the driver or any other person claiming to be in charge of such vehicle. The driver or any other person in charge of such vehicle or boat shall deliver the triplicate copy of the transit pass obtained from the entry check gate to the officer in-charge of the last check-post/barrier while the vehicle along with goods leaves the State. The transit pass duly signed by the officer in-chargeh of the entry check gate serves the purpose of a "way-bill". Under subsection (2) of section 16AA, the officer in-charge of the check-post/barrier or any other person not below the rank of a Sales Tax Officer duly authorized by the Commissioner may detain any vehicle or boat and keep it stationary as long as may reasonably be necessary for examination of the contents therein and the records relating to the goods under transport by such vehicle or boat. They may also seize the same, if it is presumed that the goods carried by the vehicle or boat has been sold in the State or the driver or any other person in-charge of the vehicle or boat, as the case may be, fails, without reasona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of the vehicle bearing registration No. WB03-A-9467 in the transit passes in several times. On August 6, 2003, while the said vehicle reached the Unified Check-gate, Girisola, loaded with 20 KL of super white kerosene valued Rs. 2,70,400, the STO issued notices under section 16AA of the OST Act to the driver of the said vehicle for violation of the declaration furnished in seven numbers of transit passes. Admittedly, in the past the driver or any other person in-charge of the vehicle No. WB-03-A-9467 had not handed over to the officer in-charge of the check-gate at exit point six numbers of transit passes issued to the driver/person in charge of the vehicle by the officer in-charge of the entry check gate. Thus, the requirement of section 16AA of the OST Act read with rule 94C of the OST Rules was not complied with and for which it was presumed that the goods carried on seven occasions were sold within the State. The fact of non-delivery of transit pass at the exit point is sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the driver/owner of the vehicle. Needless to say that the presumption that arose out of non-delivery of the transit pass at the exit point is a rebuttable p....