Patna High Court
Sailesh Kumar Tripathi For M/S Darcl ... vs The State Of Bihar on 13 March, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.407 of 2021
======================================================
Sailesh Kumar Tripathi for M/s DARCL Logistics Ltd., Gate Number 01,
Transport Nagar, P.S. Agamkuan, District- Patna- 800026 through its
authorised signatory namely Satyendra Yadav male aged about 41 years Son
of Late Motilal, Resident of Rampur Atouly, Rampur Atauli, District- Saran,
Rampur Atauli, Bihar- 841421.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner,
Department of State Taxes, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of State Taxes,
New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Maruth Nath Roy, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11
: Mr. Ravish Chaudhary, AC to SC 11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA)
Date : 19-03-2026
The present miscellaneous appeal placed on our
board against the order of Commercial Tribunal, Patna Bihar
dated 21.01.2019, wherein learned tribunal confirmed the order
as passed by first appellate authority and also the order of Joint
Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Purnea imposing a penalty of
Rs. 7,51,430/- against the appellant under Bihar Value Added
Tax Act, 2005 (in short BVAT Act, 2005).
2. The brief case of the appellant speaks that a
truck bearing registration no. AP-03-X-0914 carrying
consignment of batteries was intercepted by the officers of
State/Respondent (Commercial Tax Department) at Dalkola
integrated check post in the district of Purnea, Bihar on
Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026
2/14
19.02.2016. The Department seized the truck along with stock recorded in the order as per order sheet dated 20.02.2016 of the assessment year 2015-16 showing that though truck driver produced bill, invoice, challan and required license related goods under carriage, but no permit in terms of Section 60(2) of BVAT Act, 2005 was produced on demand and, therefore, a proceeding in terms of 60(4)(a) of BVAT Act, 2005 read with Section 56(4)(b) of BVAT Act, 2005 was initiated. In pursuant thereof a show cause notice was issued to the driver of the truck, explaining non-production of required permit in terms of Section 60(2) of the BVAT Act, 2005. The transport company was requested to be represented by one Shailesh Kumar Tripathi (appellant) upon request of the driver of the seized truck, which was accorded by the respondent authority.
3. Considering the explanation, vide order dated 01.03.2016 observing thereto as no satisfactory explanation was offered by the representative of the company, therefore, for the violations of aforesaid provisions of BVAT Act, 2005 a penalty of Rs. 7,51,430/- was imposed upon appellant. Consequent upon a demand notice no. 2269 dated 01.03.2016 under Section 25 read with Section 39 of the BVAT Act, 2005 was issued.
4. Appellant being aggrieved with aforesaid order Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 3/14 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer preferred appeal before Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Purnea Division vide appeal case no. PN/PAT-2/2016-17 almost on the grounds of facts and law as urged through present memorandum of appeal.
However the appellate authority rejected the appeal by order dated 08.07.2016 vide no. 170/Purnea.
5. The aforesaid order was challenged further before the learned Commercial Tax Tribunal, Patna Bihar as per provisions available under Section 73 of the BVAT Act, 2005, which was registered as Appeal Case No. PN-226/2016 (assessment year 2015-16) which was also rejected by the learned tribunal and being aggrieved with same the present appeal was preferred.
6. Hence the appeal.
7. Though several substantial questions of law, almost 19 in number, appear to have been raised challenging the impugned order, upon re-construction, they may be reduced to the following substantial questions of law, which would suffice to decide the issues involved in present appeal, and the same are set out as below:-
(a). Whether a reading of section 60 (2) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 implies that a person transporting taxable Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 4/14 goods is required to furnish the details in the prescribed format before the authorities at the check post alone and that until such person would furnish the declaration he would not be allowed to enter the territory of the state of Bihar?
(b). Whether a person upon violation of provisions of section 60 (2) becomes liable for penalty proceeding U/s 60(4)(b), only when such person enters the territory of the state and is found transporting goods without such declaration form which is in the shape of permit called SUVIDHA in form DVII?
(c). Whether as long a person transporting taxable goods is stationed at the check post and yet to enter the territory, application of section 60 (4) is applicable ?
(d). As section 62 of the Bihar value-
added tax act 2005 itself prescribes that a person transporting goods through the territory of the state of Bihar has to obtain the required permit from the authorities at the check post and surrender the same to the authority of the last check post before leaving the state and in case of failure in Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 5/14 compliance of such rule alone provision of section 62 (1) would be deemed to have been violated?
(e). As the holding and declaration of the case of the petitioner being covered by section 60 (4) of the Bihar value-added tax act 2005 therefore imposition of penalty under section 56 (4) (b) being three times the amount of tax calculated against the value of the goods despite the admitted case of "out to out movement"
covered by section 62 of the Bihar value- added tax act 2005 is illegal, bad and absolutely contrary to the mandate of law?
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the issue of law as well as facts and circumstances involved in the case of appellant. It is pointed out that as the goods in issue was for outside the territory of Bihar the provision of Section 60(2) of the BVAT Act, 2005 would be applicable in the present case and not the Section 60 of the BVAT Act, 2005. It is submitted that as the case of appellant happened to be of out to out movement in the territory of State of Bihar, therefore, in case of failure to obtain the declaration required to accompany the goods and truck in Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 6/14 the course of movement a penalty cannot be imposed maximum of twice to the amount of tax liability, therefore, imposition of three times fine to the tax liability as contributed in Section 56(4)(b) of the BVAT Act, 2005 is arbitrary in nature.
9. It is further submitted that the assessing authority at the check ignored the unimpeachable documents and materials accompanying the truck before imposing the penalty in terms of provisions of Section 56(4)(b) of the BVAT Act, 2005. It was also not appreciated that there was no intention on behalf of appellant or driver of seized truck to evade any tax liability and in want of absence of intention to evade the tax liability the imposition of such heavy penalty is completely illegal. It is pointed out that the imposition of penalty is not a routine matter and can be imposed only after satisfying with all factual aspects and documents, which otherwise speaks in favour of appellant and, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
10. Contrary to the aforesaid submission, learned government counsel for the State-respondent submitted that driver of the truck failed to produce "Suvidha D-VII"
(hereinafter referred to D-VII form) to the check post authority and, therefore, legal presumption arises that the goods in issue Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 7/14 was for delivery in Bihar. It is an admitted position that no aforesaid D-VII form was produced at the time of checking before the concerned authority.
11. It is pointed further that present is a case qua contradiction of legal provisions and non-production of mandatory documents in prescribed form. In support of his submissions learned govt. counsel relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court as available through M/s.
Navyuga Engineering Company Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar (Misc. Appeal No. 144 of 2023) dated 23.10.2024, where similar issues were considered after taking note of legal report as available through Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Tax Officer; (2007) 7 SCC 269, M/s. Ceat Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Others; (2024) 1 BLJ 333 & also Balurghat Technologies Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar; CWJC No. 4567 of 2015 dated 01.12.2023.
12. For the better understanding of the fact it would be apposite to reproduce impugned judgment (annexure no. 1).
ननररय
1. प्रसतु त अपील केस सं खया - PN-226/2016, (अवनध-2015-
16) नबहार मूलयवर्नर धत कर अनधननयम, 2005 की धारा 73 के अनतररत वानरजय-कर सं युकत आयु कत (अपील), पूनररयाँ प्रमं डल, पूनररयाँ के अपील केस सं खया-PN/VAT- 02/2016-17 मे नरनांक 08.07.2016 को पानरत नयाय ननररय के नवरद रायर नकया रया है , नजसमे अपीलारी र का अपील असवीकृत नकया रया है ।
2. मामले का सं नकपत तथय यह है नक वाहन सं खया - AP03X-0914 Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 8/14 का ननरीकर नरनांक-19.02.2016 को रालकोला चे क पोसट के परानधकानरयो दारा नकया रया नजस पर बै ट्री लरा रा जो आनध्रप्ररे श से ने पाल के नलए पनरवनहत नकया जा रहा रा। परानधकारीयो दारा माँ र नकये जाने पर चालक सु नवधा DVII- प्रसतु त नही नकया नजसके कारर ननरीकी परानधकारी ने इसे अनधननयम की धारा 60(2) का उलं धन मानते हुए धारा 60(4)(a) के अनतररत माल समे त वाहन को जबत नकया एवं माल के प्रानधकृत प्रनतनननध को कारर बताओ सूचना ननररत नकया परनतु सं तोषजनक सपषटीकरर के अभाव मे कर ननधाररर परानधकारी ने नरनांक-01.03.2016 को अनधननयम की धारा 60 (4) (b) सह-पनठत धारा 56(4)(b) के अनतररत र०- 7,51,430=00, शानसत अनधरोनपत करते हुए माँ रपत्र ननररत नकया नजससे असं तुषट होकर अपीलारी र अपीलीय नयायालय मे अपील रायर नकया परनतु अपीलीय नयायालय ने अवर नयायालय के आरे श को समपु षट करते हुए अप हुए अपीलारी र का अपील खानरज कर नरया नजससे असं तुषट होकर नयायानधकरर के समक अपील रायर नकया रया है ।
3. अपीलारी र के ओर से उपनसरत नवदान अनधवकता का करन है नक माल की खरीर-नबक् री प्रानत के अनरर नही नकया रया रा, यह माल आनध्रप्ररे श से ने पाल के नलए पनरवनहत नकया जा रहा रा। इनका कहना है नक इसमे कर--अपवं चना की कोई मं शा नहीं रा। अतः अपीलीय नयायालय दारा पानरत आरे श मे हसतके प करते हुए इसे खानरज की जाय एवं अपीलारी र का अपील सवीकृत की जाय ।
4. राजय सरकार के नवदान अनधवकता का करन है नक चे कपोसट के परानधकानरयो दारा माँ र नकये जाने पर चालक या अपीलारी र का कोई प्रनतनननध सु नवधा DVII प्रसतु त नहीं नकया नजससे सपषट होता है नक माल नबहार प्रानत मे ही कही पर नडलीवरी की जाती । अतः अवर नयायालय एवं अपीलीय नयायालय दारा पानरत आरे श मे नकसी प्रकार की हसतके प की आवशयकता प्रतीत नही होता है । इसनलए इसे समपु षट करते हुए अपीलारी र का अपील खानरज की जाय ।
5. उभय पको को सु ना एवं अवर नयायालय तरा अपीलीय नयायालय के अनभले ख का अनु शीलन नकया तो हम इस ननषकषर पर पहुँचते है नक अनधननयम की धारा 60(2) के अनतररत सु नवधा DVII चालक या अपीलारी र का कोई प्रनतनननध दारा चे कपोसट के परानधकानरयो के समक प्रसतु त करना चानहए रा जो नही नकया रया नजससे सपषट होता है नक माल की नबक् री नबहार प्रानत मे ही कर री रयी है जै सा नक इस समबनध मे अनधननयम की धारा 62(1) मे भी वनररत है नक अरर सकम परानधकारी के समक माल से समबननधत वाँ नछत कारजात/वै दाननक प्रपत्र प्रसतु त नही नकया जाता है तो यह माना जाएरा नक माल की नबक् री नबहार प्रानत मे ही नकया जाएरा। अतः अवर नयायालय एवं अपीलीय नयायालय दारा पानरत आरे श मे हसतके प करना नयायोनचत नही है । इसनलए इसे समपु षट करते हुए अपीलारी र का अपील खानरज की जाती है ।
फलतः अपील खानरज ।
Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 9/14
13. This case is mainly based upon two issues, firstly non-production of mandatory "Suvidha D-VII" form, before the authority concerned at Dalkola check-post, Purnea, Bihar and secondly, the appellant was not under intention to evade tax liability. For the better understanding of these facts it would be apposite to reproduce D-VII form, which is as under:-
************************ FORM D-VII Form of Declaration under Section 62 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 [See Rule 40] (To be produced in Triplicate before the appropriate authority) To, The ............of Commercial Taxes. In accordance with the provisions of rule 40 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 I/We hereby-
(a) declare that the following consignment of ..............is being moved by me/us/on my/ our behalf to...........by road/river craft/.
(b) apply for permission to transport the following consignment of........from.........to.............by road/river craft/.
(c) declare that the following consignment of..............is proposed to be transported across the state of Bihar by me/us/on/my/our behalf by road/river craft.
1. Name and address of the consignor-
2. Taxpayer Identification Number of the consignor-
3. Name and address of the consignee-
4. Taxpayer Identification Number of the consignee-
5. Place of dispatch-
6. Designation of consignment-
7. Description of consignment-
8. Quantity-
9. Value-
10. Details of mode of transport-
11. Railway Receipt or Bill of Lading or Air Note no./Consignment Note no.-
12. In case of transport by road-
(a) Name and full address of the carrier (Transport Company, owner of the vehicle, etc.)
(b) Details of the vehicle with its registration mark and number.
(c) Name and address of the driver of the vehicle.
(d) Name and address of the persons, if any, in charge of the goods. Permission I/We declare that the foregoing statement and particulars are correct and complete to the best of my/our knowledge and belief. I/We undertake to surrender one copy of this declaration to the authority or office to whom I/We have been directed to surrender it.
Signature of the applicant.
Status in relation to the dealer Address Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 10/14 Name and style of the business for which application is made:-
Location of the place of business:-
Note:- (1) A separate application should be made for each different consignment and for different destination.
(2) In case of transport by road or river a copy of the permit should accompany the goods of production on demand.
(3)(a) The declaration/application by a registered dealer, shall be signed by proprietor of the business. If an individual by the Karta, if an undivided Hindu family, by an authorized partner, in case of a firm, by a managing director, managing agent or principal executive officer, in the case of the company or corporation; by the principal executive officer or officer-in charge in the case of society, club, association, Department of Government or local authority; or by the manager declared under Section 22 or by any one of these or the person in charge for transporting the goods on behalf of either consignee or the consignor.) Permit (See Rule 40) No. ..............
Date .............
Office of the .........of Commercial Taxes ............Circle/check post. No. ...........
I hereby permit the transport of the consignment detailed overleaf. Place ..............
Signature ...............
Date............. Designation.............. DETAILS OF CONSIGNMENT PERMITTED TO BE TRANSPORTED Description of goods Quantity Dated signature of the authority issuing the permit.
1 2 3 Results of checking on the route Designation and head Description of Quantity of the goods Dated signature of quarters of the goods actually transported. the authority authority by whom mentioned in one transport of column 1. consignment was checked. 1 2 3 4 *****************************
14. For understanding the legal issues of this case it would be apposite to reproduce Section 60(2) of BVAT Act, 2005, Section 62(1) of BVAT Act, 2005 & Rule 40 of BVAT Rules, 2005, which are as under:-
60. Establishment of check-posts.-(2) Every person Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 11/14 transporting goods, other than those specified in Schedule and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed shall, at any check-post or barrier, referred to in sub-section (1) and before crossing such check-
post or barrier, file before such authority or officer as may be authorised by the State Government in this behalf, a correct and complete declaration in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
62. Transportation of goods through State of Bihar.- (1) If any consignment of goods is being transported by road from a place outside the State of vehicle shall obtain transit permission in the prescribed manner from the authority of through the territory of the State, the driver or any other person in-charge of the Bihar to another such place and the vehicle carrying the consignment passes the first check-post falling en route after entry into the State and shall surrender the same transit permission to the authority of the last checkpost before leaving the falling en route, being a time not earlier than twenty four hours but not later than State and in the event failure to do so within such time of leaving the first check-pos deemed that goods so transported have been sold by the owner or the person in seventy two hours, as the Commissioner may by notification specify, it shall be charge of the vehicle within the State of Bihar].
Rule 40. Check Posts.-(1) Where the State Government decides to set up a check-post, under Section 60 at any place in this State, the location of such check-post shall be notified in the official Gazette. When a check-post is set up on a toroughfare or road, barrier may be erected, across the road or thoroughfare, in the Form of a contrivance to enable traffic being intercepted, detained and searched.
[(2)(a) No person shall transport across or beyond a check-post to any place outside the State of Bihar any goods other than those specified in Schedule-1 exceeding such quantity or value as the Commissioner may, by notification specify except after applying for grant of and obtaining an electronic transaction number on the official Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 12/14 website of the Commercial identification Taxes Department.
(b) Every applicant referred to in clause (a) shall, in respect of consignments proposed to be transported as aforesaid, upload such details as the Commissioner may, by notification issued in this behalf, specify.
(c) Every application under clause (a) shall be processed, and the electronic transaction identification number generated and communicated to the applicant, in such manner as may be specified in the notification issued under clause (b).
(d) The driver of the vehicle carrying the goods or the person incharge of the goods shall, upon demand, communicate the electronic transaction identification number granted in respect of the goods to the monitoring authority for verification who shall deal with the same in such manner as may be specified in the notification issued under clause (b).
(e) The manner in which the electronic transaction identification number is to be communicated for verification to the monitoring authority and the period for which the said number shall be valid may be specified in the notification issued under clause (b).
15. It would be apposite to reproduce para no. 10 of the Navyuga Engineering Company (supra), which is as under :-
10. Balurghat Technologies Ltd (supra) was a case of export into Nepal; again not attracting any tax liability, and the vehicle was detained at the entry check-post of the State of Bihar. The Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 13/14 detention at the entry check-post was for reason of transport without statutory declaration form, which was in violation of Section 60(2) of the Bihar VAT Act. Again, Guljag Industries and D.P. Metals (both supra) were relied on to find that despite the alleged transaction not attracting tax, if the consignment is not supported by the prescribed declaration, then it attracts the civil liability of penalty. Therein also a subsequently generated declaration form, after detention, was produced which was held to be not in accordance with the dictum of D.P. Metals (supra). The subsequent production of a document, when the detention was on account of declaration form not accompanying the consignment, can only inure to the benefit of the consignor/consignee, when the same is generated prior to the commencement of transportation. The Division Bench in Balurghat Technologies Ltd. (supra) categorically relied on the cited decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to find that if by mistake some of the documents are not readily available at the time of checking and when an opportunity is given in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the transporter or the consignor has the opportunity to produce the document which ought to have existed at the time of transportation which, however was not accompanied, for reason of human error or inadvertence.
16. With aforesaid legal principles and dictum in hand, now we have to look at the fact of this case. It appears that vehicle in issue was detained by State-respondents, when it reached to Dalkola check-post. It is admitted position that upon demand no "D-VII form" was produced before authority Patna High Court MA No.407 of 2021 dt.19-03-2026 14/14 concerned. Therefore, in view of Section 60(2) of BVAT Act, 2005, a presumption can be drawn under Section 62(1) of the BVAT Act, 2005 that the goods in issue was for sale in Bihar only. Submission that the transportation was not under intention to evade tax liability would be inconsequential as the imposition of penalty is based on the contravention of the legal provisions.
17. The substantial question of law accordingly answered in the favour of State-respondents and against the appellant.
18. The appeal stands rejected, being devoid of any merit as discussed aforesaid.
( Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Bibek Chaudhuri, J:- I agree.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) S.Tripathi, Sudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 13.03.2026 Uploading Date 19.03.2026 Transmission Date 19.03.2026