CENTURY CEMENT Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KHARAGPUR RANGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is a well -known manufacturer of cement in India. The petitioner's manufacturing unit is situated at Raipur in the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as, "the VAT Act") and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

(2.) IN course of its business the petitioner imports cement from its factory at Raipur to West Bengal by way of stock transfer for the purpose of selling those goods in West Bengal. The goods are brought from the factory by railway. Some of such imported cements are taken delivery by the petitioner at Kalaikunda Railway Station near Kharagpur. Although under the provisions of Rule 100 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, "the VAT Rules") the importer has to present way -bill in form No. 50 in duplicate before taking delivery of the goods from the railway authorities but in practice the way -bills were being produced for endorsement after the goods were taken delivery and transported to the petitioner's godown. The sales tax authorities of the concerned check -post have never objected to the said procedure and always endorsed the way -bills presented for endorsement after and sometimes long after the date of taking delivery. The petitioner has annexed a statement being annexure A which shows that endorsement was made even more than four months after the date of taking delivery. However, there is no allegation that any point of time the way -bill in respect of any consignment brought by the petitioner through Kalaikunda railway station was not presented for endorsement.

(3.) IN the present case the petitioner on its own produced the way -bill along with other required documents before respondent No. 1 for endorsement. There was indeed technical violation inasmuch as the way -bill and the related documents were not presented for endorsement before taking delivery of the goods. As already pointed out such practice of presenting way -bill after taking delivery was allowed to be. followed by the sales tax authorities of the check -post. True, an irregular practice should not be permitted to be perpetuated and should be stopped. But before stopping, the concerned officer should have put the petitioner on alert that such irregular practice could not be allowed to be followed any longer.