Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. A brief resume of facts would help in focusing attention on the dispute involved in these writ petitions. The petitioner Company is a transport Company having its office at Mumbai. It booked goods viz; Supari from M/s. Malabar Trading Company, Maloth for delivery to another registered dealer M/s. Sai Traders of Delhi. It carried invoice No. 431 dated 4.1.2002 of M/s. Malabar Trading Company, Maloth showing trade of Supari to M/s. Sai Traders. It also carried Bilty No, 32348 dt. 4.1.2002 of petitioner M/s. Lalji Mulji Transport Company showing despatch of Supari from M/s. Malabar Trading Company, Maloth to M/s. Sai Traders of Delhi through truck No. HR-55/5769. The said truck proceeded from Maloth, Mangalore (Karnataka) towards Delhi. The Assessing Authority on receiving information that the truck containing Supari was being brought within the State with fake bills and bilties and, therefore, the second respondent viz; the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward-11, Nimbahera intercepted and checked the petitioner's truck on 12.1.2002 at the checkpost of Nimbahera. The driver of the vehicle produced documents viz; bill dated 4.1.2002 for Rs. 5,01,600/-and bilty No. 32348 dated 4.1.2002 bearing seals of transit checkpost. The second respondent suspected the genuineness of the Central Sales Tax/L.C. Number given in the bill. The driver of the vehicle Was confronted with the situation. As per the say of the Assessing Authority, the driver Incharge produced a fax copy of the Registration Certificate of M/s. Sai Traders, Delhi. The driver and the Assessing Authority had a talk with the dealer viz; M/s. Sai Traders at Delhi. The dealer pleaded his absolute ignorance about such goods being brought to his place. It is also averred by the Assessing Authority that the driver made the statement to the effect that he was carrying goods in the transit from Ichhlakarni to Delhi. He further stated that he could even unload the goods anywhere in the State of Rajasthan as per the directions of the dealer or the transport Company. The say of the petitioner is that provisions of Section 78 do not apply to its case as the goods were merely intended to pass through the State of Rajasthan for which transit pass was supposed to be issued in terms of Section 80 of the Act. Inspite of the fact that the relevant documents were immediately produced which clearly shows that the consignor as well as the consignee were registered dealers, the second respondent has unlawfully seized the goods and refused to release the truck causing undue harassment and pecuniary loss. It is submitted that the mistake in giving the R.C. Number of purchasing dealer was a bonafide clerical error on the part of a clerk of office of the consignor. Since C.S.T./L.C. Number of the consignee on the bill produced was fake and M/s. Sai Traders disowned it being consignee of the goods, the Assessing Authority formed an opinion that the goods were being brought on the strength of the fake documents. Accordingly, he issued a notice under Section 78(5) of the Act for violation of the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act. Another notice under Section 78(8) of the Act was issued to the petitioner transport Company. The petitioner submitted a representation i.e. reply to the notice under Section 78(8) of the Act. At this stage, petitioner approached to this court seeking direction for the release of the truck and the goods and also to quash the notice under Section 78(4) and (8) of the Act. This Court by order dated 23.1.1993 issued a short notice to the department. Subsequently, it has been brought to our notice that the assessment proceedings had concluded on 20.1.2002 vide Annex. R/1.

M/S GILL SANDHU TRANSPORT CO. (698-02) : SHRI INDRAPRIT SINGH (690-02) :

The petitioner is a transporter having the business in the name of M/s. Gill Sandhu Transport Company and office at Delhi. M/s. N.K. Traders, Bangalore booked goods viz; plastic scrap worth Rs. 56,160/- for delivery at United Plastic Industries, Delhi. The petitioner's truck bearing No. HR 38/D-5084 was intercepted and checked by the second respondent i.e. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Pratapgarh at the check-post Jalia Pipalia, Nimbahera. The driver of the truck namely Raghuvir Singh Under Section 72(2) produced one bill No. 376 dt. 1.12.2001 issued by M/s. N.K. Traders, Bangalore in favour of United Plastic Industries, Delhi pertaining to loose plastic scrap mentioning cost price as Rs. 56,160/-. He also produced a bilty No. 880 dt. 2,12.2001 issued by M/s. Gill Sandhu Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. The name of the consignee was shown in the bilty as M/s. United Plastic Industries, Delhi. He aiso produced the challan No. 696 dt. 2.12.2001 issued by M/s. Gill Sandhu Cargo Movers Private Limited bearing truck No. KA/32- 1952 and also HR/38-5084. However, on inspection, it was found that the goods in transit was Supari and not the plastic scrap as disclosed in the bills, billies and the goods challan produced. According to the petitioner, goods viz; Supari were booked in the State of Kerala by a registered dealer M/s. K.T. Mohammed & Sons to another registered dealer M/s. S.K. Enterprises of Delhi. The truck No. KLS 8898 carrying Supari proceeded from Kerala, at Hyderabad where the Company belonging to the petitioner has an office, transported the goods viz; Supari to the truck No. HR/38- 5084 for onward transshipment to Delhi. The driver of the truck inadvertently brought the envelope containing the documents relating to the other truck for different goods viz; plastic scrap. However, at the time of checking by the second respondent on 7.12.2001, he truthfully mentioned that the goods were Supari and he produced the documents. When the second respondent pointed out the discrepancy, the driver reported the matter to the Delhi Office where upon enquiry from Hyderabad office, the mistake of driver was realized and immediately the relevant documents viz; bill of the seller, billy etc. were obtained on fax and submitled to the second respondent. According to the petitioner, it was a bonafide mistake of the driver. On physical verification of the goods, it was found that there were 130 bags of Supari with the weighment of 9100 kgs. The Assessing Authority being satisfied of the foul play issued a notice under Section 78(5) of the Act. A reply to the said notice was submitted by the petitioner. The Assessing Authority arrived at a finding that the documents did not relate to the goods in transit and the photostat copies of the documents produced later-on was only an after thought and concoction. The Assessing Authority imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,91,000/-on the value of the goods determined at Rs. 6,37,000/-. Since the dealer had not disclosed true information with regard to the consignor and the consignee, the Assessing Authority in exercise of powers Under Section 78(11) also assessed a liability of tax and surcharge under the Rajasthan Sales Tax quantified at Rs. 25,480/- and Rs. 3822/-respectively. The Assessing Authority also issued a notice under Section 78(8) of the Act. After giving an opportunity of hearing and considering the reply, the Assessing Authority has passed the order imposing the penalty i.e. 30% of the value of the goods by order dated 20.12.2001. Petitioner has preferred an appeal against me said order before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Assessing Authority has also found that the value of the goods shown in the bill was lesser than the fair market price of such goods. On enquiry, it has also revealed that the value of the goods viz; Supari in the State of Rajasthan was Rs. 70/- to Rs. 85/- per kg., whereas in the State of Karnataka, it is Rs. 76/- to Rs. 90/- per kg.