S.P.Talukdar, J. - (1.) The judgment and order dated April 6, 2001 passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") in Case No. R.N. 346 of 2000 Reported in [2003] 131 STC 485 (WBTT).have been sought to be assailed by the petitioner/appellant, Kodak India Limited, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956.
(2.) The appellant's grievances may briefly be stated as follows : The appellant/petitioner is, inter alia, carrying on business of photographic film in the State of West Bengal. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1994 Act") holding registration certificate No. TL/19.
(3.) The petitioner after obtaining blank permit to import consignment of photographic film sent it to its clearing agent in the month of September, 1997. On October 10, 1997, the driver of the vehicle with the consignment of photographic film entered into West Bengal without collecting the blank permit from the agent. The vehicle was detained at Chichira check-post and it was followed by seizure of the entire consignment on October 12, 1997 but due to a public demonstration at Bagnan Railway Station on October 14, 1997 the appellant could not reach Chichira check-post. The petitioner met respondent No. 3, i.e., Commercial Tax Officer, Chichira check-post on October 15, 1997 and produced the permit. Respondent No. 3, however, refused to accept the permit and issued a notice asking the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 71 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The value of the consignment was assessed at Rs. 25 lakhs after hearing the petitioner and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed. The said amount was deposited by the petitioner for getting goods released. Such order of respondent No. 3 was confirmed by respondent No. 2 in revision. Respondent No. 2 by an order dated November 18, 1997 confirmed the order dated October 15, 1997, passed by respondent No. 3. Being aggrieved by such order of the respondent No. 2, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Midnapore Circle, the petitioner preferred a second revision before the respondent No. 1, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Midnapore.;