Patna High Court - Orders
Pragya Shravan Trading Company vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 26 April, 2011
Bench: Chief Justice, Jyoti Saran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6268 of 2011
====================================================
Pragya Shravan Trading Company, through Tashin Shah, son of Bashir
Shah, resident of Shakti Nagar, Ward No.14, Dhupguri, P.S. Dhupguri,
District Jalpaiguri (West Bengal).
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Divisional Investigation Bureau, Purnia
Division, Bihar.
3. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Investigation Bureau, Purnia, Bihar.
4. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Kishanganj, Bihar.
5. The Officer in Charge, P.S. Kishanganj, District Kishanganj, Bihar.
.... .... Respondents
====================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, AAG-1 with
Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to AAG-1
====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
4. 26.4.2011. With the consent of the learned advocates the petition is heard and decided today.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by one Pragya Shravan Trading Company through its authorized agent Tashin Shah, a resident of Dhupguri, District Jalpaiguri (West Bengal).
The petitioner company is situated at Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner had contracted for sale of a consignment of betel nuts [15865 kilograms (271 bags)] to the consignee Sai Trading Company situated at Dhupguri, District-Jalpaiguri (West -2- Bengal).
The said consignment of betel nuts and a consignment of galvanized tower parts destined for Tripura in Assam were sent by the petitioner company by road transport. On the way, while passing through Kishanganj district of State of Bihar, the truck was intercepted on 27th March 2011. During search the authorised person produced various documents including the invoices, bilti, 'C' form etc. in respect of the consignment of betel nuts. The company also produced a way bill issued at Dalkola (West Bengal) indicating that the consignment of galvanized tower parts were destined for Tripura and would not be offloaded in the State of West Bengal.
Under the suspicion that the Tax Identification Number stated on the documents was not genuine, the consignment was seized under the seizure memo dated 27th March 2011.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
Pending the petition an assessment order has been made on 29th March 2011. The petitioner is alleged to have concealed the said consignment of betel nuts with a view to defrauding the revenue. Under the belief that the consignment of betel nuts was intended to be offloaded at Kishanganj in the State of Bihar the petitioner has been assessed to Rs.62,376.00 under the Value Added Tax @ 4% and has been visited with three times the penalty of Rs.1,87,128.00.
Learned advocate Mr. Prabhat Ranjan has -3- appeared for the writ petitioner. He has submitted that the disputed consignment was brought from the State of Maharashtra and was destined to the State of West Bengal. Neither the consignment had originated in the State of Bihar nor was it intended to be offloaded in the State of Bihar. The respondent authorities of the State of Bihar had no jurisdiction to seize the disputed consignment. The action of seizure and the consequent order of assessment made by the respondents are without the authority of law.
Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the respondents. He has submitted that the seized truck entered in the State of Bihar from Dalkola in the State of West Bengal. It was, therefore, necessary for the petitioner to produce the way bill issued at Dalkola. The petitioner did produce the way bill issued at Dalkola (West Bengal) in respect of the consignment of galvanized tower parts but not in respect of the disputed consignment of betel nuts. In absence of way bill the respondents were justified in inferring that the consignment of betel nuts was concealed and was intended for sale in the State of Bihar.
We see no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore. In support that the consignment was destined for Jalpaiguri in the State of West Bengal the petitioner did produce the above referred documents such as invoice, the bilti and the 'C' form. Initial suspicion in respect of Tax Identification Number of the consignor has also been allayed after enquiry. In our -4- view, it was too far fetched for the respondent authorities to infer an intention to defraud the State revenue or an intention to offload the consignment of betel nuts at Kishanganj in the State of Bihar.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the seizure of the consignment of betel nuts under the seizure memo dated 27th March 2011 was not justified and requires to be quashed. Consequently, the order of assessment made on 29th March 2011 shall also be quashed.
For the aforesaid reason, the petition is allowed. The action of seizure of the consignment of the betel nuts under the seizure memo dated 27th March 2011 and the consequent order of assessment dated 29th March 2011 are quashed and set aside.
The parties will bear their own cost.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J) Pawan/-