P.K. Ganguly, Judicial Member - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 challenging the seizure by respondent No. 1 of 160 bags of betel nuts on November 21, 2000 and the subsequent notice in form 44 by respondent No. 1 and praying for quashing the same as the said action of respondent No. 1 is wholly illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner - -a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 imports various goods from different States outside West Bengal and sells the same to various States outside West Bengal. The petitioner purchased 178 bags of betel -nuts from different parties of Port Blair, Andaman and imported the same to West Bengal under valid way -bill and supporting documents where value of the said goods was duly mentioned. The way -bill and the other documents after thorough checking were duly endorsed by the sales tax authority at Khiddirpur Dock Check -post. Out of the 178 bags, 160 bags of betel -nuts were being sent to M/s. Thakurji Trading Company, Delhi through M/s. South Assam Carriers (P) Ltd., on November 20, 2000 and were loaded in vehicle No. WB -03/2956 accompanied by a way -bill in form 48, invoice, road chalan, consignment note, etc. Before the vehicle reached check -post, it was intercepted by a team of Commercial Tax Officers, Durgapur Range, and had been detained under order dated November 20, 2000 despite showing of all the documents duly endorsed as above. Subsequently on November 21, 2000, the said goods were seized and a seizure receipt dated November 21, 2000 was handed over to the driver of the said vehicle - -on whom notice in form 44 initiating penalty proceeding was also served. The alleged ground of seizure is undervaluation which the seizing officer found on verification from local pan shop. It is contended that Rule 214C of the Rules, 1995 which is applicable in the instant case of transportation does not provide for any enquiry regarding valuation of the goods. So the respondent No. 1 had no competent jurisdiction to seize on that score. Moreover, the method of ascertaining valuation of the betel -nuts shows that the Commercial Tax Officer did not objectively satisfy himself on the said point. Accordingly prayer is made for declaration that the seizure and the subsequent notice in form 44 are mala fide, baseless and illegal.
(2.) THE case of the respondent is that Sub -rules (3), (4) and (5) of Rule 214C read with Section 68 of the Act give the respondent No. 1, Commercial Tax Officer, jurisdiction to verify the valuation of the goods and that as such the Commercial Tax Officer has jurisdiction to verify the valuation as done by him. Moreover, his conclusion regarding under -valuation being based on materials, the seizure is valid and the subsequent notice too therefore is valid. The only point for consideration is whether the seizure dated November 21, 2000 and the notice under form 44 by the respondent -Commercial Tax Officer are lawful or not.
(3.) SECTION 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 enjoins that to ensure that there is no evasion of tax, every person transporting goods has to comply with certain restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed. Restrictions and conditions for transport of consignment of goods by such persons from any place in West Bengal to any place outside West Bengal are enumerated in Rule 214C of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. Admittedly the transportation of the instant consignment is covered by the said restrictions embodied in Rule 214C of the Rules, 1995. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that in any of the five sub -rules of the said Rule 214C, there is no hint at all empowering the Commercial Tax Officer to verify the valuation of the goods consigned. We have been also referred to by the learned Advocate, to Rule 212 of the Rules, 1995 which rule prescribes the formalities to be observed for transporting consignment of goods into West Bengal from any place outside West Bengal. It is the submission of the learned advocate that Sub -rule (9) of Rule 212 empowers the Commercial Tax Officer to verify the correctness of the description, quantity, weight or value of the goods of a consignment as mentioned in the accompanied waybill with the description, quantity, weight or value which are actually found in such consignment. But in none of the five Sub -rules of 214C there is any such empowerment to verify the correctness of the value of the goods. The submission as above appears to have force as we peruse both the Rules 212 along with its Sub -rules (1) to (11) and Rule 214C with its five sub -rules. Sub -rule (3) of Rule 214C empowers the officer to verify the way -bill in form 48 or the copy of the chalan with reference to any other document produced by the transporter with the consignment of goods transported by him, and then to counter -sign with his seal and date - -the duplicate copy of the way -bill or chalan and to record the particulars of such consignment of goods in the register maintained for the purpose and to return the counter -signed duplicate copy of the way -bill or chalan and documents, if any, and to retain the original copy of the way -bill or the chalan, as the case may be. Sub -rule (4) of Rule 214C enjoins "For the purpose of verifying whether any consignment of goods is being transported in contravention of the provisions of Sections 68 and 73, such Assistant Commissioner or Commercial Tax Officer, as may be authorised by the Commissioner to exercise such power at a place other than a check -post, may demand, at such place near the border of West Bengal where the transporter reaches before exit from West Bengal, production of waybill in form 48 or chalan and other documents, if any, and shall, thereafter act in accordance with the provisions of Sub -rule (3)". Sub -rule (5) of Rule 214C enjoins "Where it appears to the Commercial Tax Officer or inspector of a check -post, or the Assistant Commissioner or Commercial Tax Officer who is competent to exercise his power under Section 69 at any other place other than a check -post, that due to failure of any person, dealer or casual trader, no way -bill in form 48 or chalan, as the case may be, can be produced by the transporter before him, he shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such consignment of goods under Section 70 at the check -post or at any place referred to in Sub -section (2) of Section 73". Thus a clear reading of the provision of the Rule 214C suggests that there is no provision in the said rule for verifying correctness of the value of the goods of a consignment as it is to be found in the Rule 212 of the Rules, 1995. Admittedly, in the present case before us the way -bill, chalan and other documents were all in order and no deficiency in either of those documents can be found by the respondent -Commercial Tax Officer. So, we hold that the Commercial Tax Officer went beyond his jurisdiction in this case as he ventured to verify the valuation which he was not expressly or impliedly permitted under the statute in this case. Learned advocate for the respondent referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in [2000] 117 STC 315 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. P.T. Enterprises) to impress upon us that verifying valuation of the goods consigned with the market rate is permitted. But we find that the said ruling is with respect to a matter covered by Section 29 -A of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. We are concerned here with a different Act with its separate Rules and provisions. Moreover, there the fact was relating to importation of goods into that State, i.e., Madhya Pradesh - -which is not the case here. It was next contended by learned State Representative that this Tribunal in a case reported in [2002] 125 STC 402 : (2001) 37 STA 21 (Gangorri Supply v. Commercial Tax Officer) decided that verifying the value in the way -bill is permitted in such cases. But we find the fact of the said case is quite different from the one before us.;