2025 (7) TMI 1634

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arch, 2025 in an application filed in RN- 930 of 2013. The petitioner filed the said application before the learned tribunal seeking condonation of delay of 440 days in filing the application being CAN-51 of 2025, which was an application filed for recalling the order dated 1st December, 2023 by which the main application being RN-930 of 2013 was dismissed for default. 2. The learned tribunal was not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the petitioner on account of its conduct. Firstly, the earlier application was filed supported by an affidavit, sworn to by an advocate's clerk, which the learned tribunal rightly did not accept. 3. The second application was filed seeking condonation of delay of 440 days in filing the applicat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner subsequently generated Form-F declaration, which satisfies the requisite condition for stock transfer, failing which goods were liable for payment of Central Sales Tax. Respondent/revenue cannot dispute this fact. Secondly, the reason for imposition of penalty, that too @ 14.5% is on the ground that Waybill was not generated in Form-50A and goods were shifted from the railway station to the godown of the petitioner and this came to light only when the officers of the department inspected the godown on 7th May, 2013. The consignment, which was despatched from Jharkhand on 2nd May, 2013 arrived at Dalkhola Rake Point on 5th May, 2013. 7. It is an admitted fact that on the said date, no Way-bill was generated in Form- 50A. On informa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... consideration of all relevant circumstances." 9. This decision of Hindusthan Steel Ltd. (supra) was relied on by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Zarghamuddin Ansari (Anwar) v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. : (2001) 38 STA 129 (Cal. HC.). 10. In Kodak India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Midnapore Circle & Ors. : (2003) 41 STA 132 (Cal. HC), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was considering a case of imposition of penalty upon seizure of consignment due to non-production of permit, wherein the Court took into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindusthan Steel Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Zarghamuddin Ansari (Anwar) (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner, there has been continuous movement of cement bags from the place of manufacture, which is situated in the State of Jharkhand to the State of West Bengal on stock transfer and there appears to have been no antecedent on the part of the petitioner to evade payment of Tax. Therefore, we are convinced to state that non-generation of the Way-bill can be construed to be a clerical error for which there is discretion vested with the Commissioner to impose lesser penalty than the penalty provided in the table under sub-section (1) of section 77. 13. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner should have exercised more caution and care especially when the petitioner is a very large business house and has been carrying on such acti....