Case Law Details
Sandip Kumar Singhal Vs Deputy Commissioner (Calcutta High Court)
High Court held that that provision of Section 129(3) of the Act would not be invoked to subject a godown premises to search and seizure operation. For invoking Section 67 of the Act existence of reasons to believe to subject the premises to search and seize goods is mandated. Here, the authority is vacillating between Section 67 and 68; whether the goods are in transit or in the godown.
In the case at hand it does not appear that the authority acted in accordance with the appropriate legal provisions and instead penalised the petitioner in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind.
In view of the above, the impugned order of the adjudicating authority and the appellate forum are liable to be set aside and, are accordingly, set aside. The respondent authority is directed to refund the amount collected from the petitioner as penalty positively within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
It will, however, be open for the authority to assess the penalty, if any, payable by the petitioner for offloading goods and storing the same at a place not mentioned in the e-way bill.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
