Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Dtdc Express Ltd vs Sales Tax Officer on 4 May, 2016
1
8 04.5.2016
W.P. 8184 (W) of 2016
gd
M/s. DTDC Express Ltd
Vs.
Sales Tax Officer, Bureau of
Investigation,
Unit-2 & Ors.
Mr. Rituraj Chakraborty
..for the Petitioner
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria
Mr. S. Mukherjee
..for the Respondents
The petitioner carries on business as a courier. The petitioner complains of 440 items being seized on the ground that no way-bills were obtained therefor.
The petitioner has relied on documents to suggest that about 402 of the 440 items were meant for personal use. The petitioner claims that several of the remaining goods seized were also for personal use, but there were a few that ought to have carried way-bills therefor.
The State refers to the order 2 dated April 5, 2016 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bureau of Investigation-II. The State says that it does not appear that the documents sought to be relied upon in the petition were presented before the official when the order dated April 5, 2016 was passed.
Without going into any controversy as to whether such documents had been placed or not, the petitioner is permitted to rely on the best documents in the petitioner's possession before the same Commercial Tax Officer, who will thereupon modify the order dated April 5, 2016, if it is so warranted or otherwise continue the same in full or in part in accordance with law.
If the petitioner produces the relevant documents by May 6, 2016, the concerned official should 3 complete the exercise within two days of the receipt thereof.
W.P. 8184 (W) of 2016 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 4