EPITONE PETROCHEMICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. STO, PHANSIDEWA MORE CHECK-POST AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, Epitone Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner No. 1) and Radhu Shil (petitioner No. 2), working for gain with petitioner No. 1, have challenged the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Phansidewa More check -post (PMCP) (respondent No. 2) and Sales Tax Officer, PMCP (respondent No. 1), respectively, in the matter of seizure of goods and subsequent imposition of penalty thereon. Petitioner No. 1 carries on business of manufacturing as well as reselling various goods. The registered office of petitioner No. 1 is located at 7, Prafulla Sirkar Street, Kolkata 700 013 in West Bengal and its factory situated at Ranipool, Sikkim. In course of their business, the petitioners had placed an order to M/s. Indorama Ventures, Indonesia, for supply of about 198 MTs of pet resin for the purpose of manufacturing their product at their factory at Ranipool, Sikkim. The foreign seller despatched the entire consignment in 180 bags through ship to the Kolkata Port and raised single invoice bearing No. E -1111 -25 -30 dated November 24, 2011 in the name of petitioner No. 1 showing its Kolkata address.

(2.) ON instruction of petitioner No. 1, the consignment of pet resin loaded in 180 bags was cleared from the Kolkata Port by the clearing agent and subsequently loaded in various trucks from time to time for transportation of the goods to the factory situated at Sikkim.

(3.) SRI B. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in the instant case, the petitioners had produced all related documents as well as the actual invoice, packing list, beneficiary certificate, address advising and the certificate of insurance of goods, etc., and in all of which, there was clear mention of the fact that the goods were meant for delivery at the factory of petitioner No. 1 at Ranipool in Sikkim. He submitted that the respondents had failed to appreciate the fact that in the instant case, the goods were imported from Indonesia and the transportation of the imported goods being made directly from the Kolkata Port to Ranipool in Sikkim using West Bengal as a corridor, the provision of section 80 of the VAT Act, 2003 would be applicable in the instant case. By no stretch of imagination, the provision of section 73 of the VAT Act, 2003 could be made applicable in the present case and way -bill in form 50 or 50A could be demanded for such transportation. Sri Bhattacharyya submitted that respondents should have appreciated that out of the total import of 180 bags of pet resin, 166 bags of pet resin had already been despatched to Sikkim on production of 12 transit declarations after due endorsement of documents at Melli check -post and the instant consignment of 14 bags of pet resin was the last part of the entire imported consignment.