Decided on June 30,2010

Trimurti Industries Limited And Another Appellant
Sto And Others Respondents


R.K.DATTA CHAUDHURI, J. - (1.)THE application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 is directed against the revisional order passed on September 2, 2009 by respondent No. 2, Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Siliguri range in the Revision Case No. R/JC/12/SGR/09 -10 dated August 29, 2009 affirming the seizure of 3911 rain coats in seizure Case No. SGR/94/09 -10 dated August 22, 2009 by respondent No. 1 reducing the amount of penalty to Rs. 1,72,084 from the amount of Rs. 2,58,462 imposed by respondent No. 1. On August 20, 2009 at 8 a.m. in course of wayside checking at Medical More of Siliguri, the vehicle No. WB 23 A 9339 carrying the goods was intercepted by the STO, Siliguri Range for non -production of tax invoices. Subsequently, on August 22, 2009, he seized the goods under section 76 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for contravention of the provisions of section 81(1)(a) and (b) of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003. From the consignment note produced by the driver, it was ascertained that the goods were sold by the petitioner, a dealer under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act to M/s. Sunrise Enterprise of Guwahati in Assam. The pro forma invoice as produced by the driver shows sale of consignment at 220 per piece, total being Rs. 8,60,420 without charging CST. As per the penalty order, it was asserted by the petitioner that he intended to raise the tax invoice after receipt of the goods by the Government of Assam and in the letter dated August 22, 2009 he had stated the same to the respondents. This explanation was not accepted and penalty under section 77 of the Act was imposed. Before the revisional authority he asserted that after detention of the consignment of goods the petitioner sent relevant tax invoice by fax on August 22, 2009 and a copy thereof was sent on August 24, 2009. The same fact was asserted in the written submissions made before the revisional authority. The revisional authority did not accept this explanation but on consideration of the fact that the petitioner raised the tax invoice immediately after the seizure of the goods and that he would have to account for the transaction, he reduced the amount of penalty to 20 per cent of the value of the goods from 30 per cent thereof.
(2.)On being aggrieved with this order of the revisional authority the petitioner filed the present application as well as a subsequent affidavit asserting the fact as aforesaid. He annexed the copy of the purchase order dated June 7, 2009 issued by the Sunrise Enterprise to the petitioner. The sale was a conditional sale within the meaning of section 12 of the Sale of Goods Act which was evidenced by the purchase order annexed with the supplementary affidavit. Even if it was not a conditional sale, it having been inter -State sale, raising of tax invoice was not a mandate of section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
(3.)THE respondents contested the application by filing affidavit -in -opposition denying contentions of the petitioner and supporting the impugned seizure and the penalty order. It is submitted by the respondents that even after acceptance of the goods sold, those could be returned and in the event of return of goods credit notes could be issued. When the goods are sent to the agent, it was a stock transfer. It was also denied that the sale was to the Government of Assam.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.