- (1.) THIS case arises out of a seizure of a consignment of detergent cake being transported from Naroda Road, Ahmedabad to Raiganj in the District of West Dinajpur, West Bengal. The seizure was made on January 8, 1988 by the Commercial Tax Officer, Dalkhola Check-Post on the ground stated in the seizure receipt vide annexure "h" to the revision application. The Commercial Tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 37,500. The applicant moved an appeal and prayed for release of the goods whereupon there was an order for release of the goods on condition of the applicant depositing Rs. 1,500. The deposit having been made, the goods were released.
(2.) IN the present application, the applicant has challenged the propriety of the seizure. At the hearing Mr. Sumit Chakraborty, appearing on behalf of the applicants, took a preliminary objection, namely, that the officer concerned had no authority to seize the consignment under the law. He draws our attention to the delegation of powers under rule 4 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1954 and refers to order dated July 24, 1987, relating to delegation of powers under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. According to that order the officer empowered to seize any notified commodity referred to in section 7 of the Act, is the Assistant Commissioner. In the instant case, the seizure was effected by the Commercial Tax Officer. In view of the order of delegation of powers dated July 24, 1987, the Commercial Tax Officer was not to duly authorised officer to effect the seizure and impose a penalty on January 8, 1988. Mr. P. K. Chakraborty, appearing on behalf of the respondents, complained that the applicant did not raise this objection in the main application and hence the respondents could not file any opposition with regard to the contention now urged before us. He, however, conceded that this was a question of law and he could not controvert the factual position that on the relevant date, namely, January 8, 1988, the competent authority to effect the seizure was the Assistant Commissioner. It follows, therefore, that the seizure effect by the Commercial Tax Officer was without jurisdiction. This being the position, it is not necessary for us to enter into the other points raised in the application. The preliminary objection succeeds. The seizure accordingly has to be set aside. The order imposing the penalty must necessarily fail along with it. The sum of Rs. 1,500 deposited by the applicant in order to obtain release of the goods is liable to be refunded.
(3.) THE case is thus disposed of. The respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1,500 to the applicant within four weeks from today. There will be no order as to costs.;