KAMAL KUMAR AGARWAL versus COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 26-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2010] 3 S.C.R. 1030 
KAMAL KUMAR AGARWAL 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, WEST 
BENGAL & QRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2757 of 2010) 
MARCH 26, 2010 
[S.H. KAPADIA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Sales Tax - West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 - s.68(3) 
C - West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995- r.211A(6)- Transport 
from port; airport etc., of consignment of goods despatched 
from any place outside West Bengal and bound for any place 
outside West Bengal - Regulatory measures to avoid tax 
evasion - Consignment of imported goods to be transported 
D through State of West Bengal to Mumbai - Appellant was the 
Customs House Agent (CHA) of the importer - Declaration 
made by appellant in prescribed format as per r.211A before 
taking delivery of the goods - Penalty imposed on appellant 
for failure to produce the endorsed counter-signed copy of the 
E declaration before the Assessing Authority - Justification of 
- Held: Justified - With the making of the Declaration, the 
appellant undertook the obligation to transit the consignment 
to a destination outside the State, for which the proof was the 
countersigned copy of the Declaration - Non-production 
F thereof, raised a legal presumption of tax evasion, which the 
appellant failed to rebut. 
The scope and effect of Section 68(3) of the West 
Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 read with sub-Rule (6) of Rule 
211A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 came up 
G for consideration in the present appeal. 
Appellant was appointed by an importer as its 
Customs House Agent [CHA). The consignment of 
imported goods was to be thereafter transported to 
H 
1030 
KAMAL KUMAR AGARWAL v. C. C. T., WEST 
1031 
BENGAL 
Mumbai through the State of West Bengal. Appellant 
A 
made declaration in prescribed format as per r.211A 
before taking delivery of the goods. The goods passed 
through the sales tax barrier at Haldia (the first 
checkpost) and, ultimately, through the exit checkpost at 
Chichira, and were finally received by the consignee 
B 
(importer). 
The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 
issued show-cause notice to the appellant alleging 
contravention of Section 68 of the Act in respect of 
transportation of the goods from Haldia to Chichira. It was 
C 
alleged that the appellant failed to produce the endorsed 
copy of the prescribed Declaration in terms of Rule 211A. 
Appellant disputed the maintainability of the notice 
stating that the subject goods could be moved only by D 
the owner or the importer, directly by itself or through its 
transporter, and that appellant being a CHA, he had no 
role to play in the movement of the goods. He submitted 
that he was appointed by the importer only to get the 
documents cleared from the Customs and Port E 
authorities and not for movement of the goods and that 
he was not required to keep an endorsed copy of the 
said Declaration. The appellant contended that under 
Rule 211A, the endorsed copy was returned to the person 
transporting the goods for onward movement to its final 
F 
destination. 
The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 
imposed penalty on the appellant for failure to produce 
the endorsed copy of the prescribed Declaration in terms 
of Rule 211A. The order was upheld by the West Bengal 
G 
Taxation Tribunal as well as the High Court. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
1032 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 has 
been enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating 
to the levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods in the 
State of West Bengal. [Para 9] [1050-E-F] 
8 
1.2. To ensure that there is no evasion of tax, Section 
68 of the Act (which occurs in Chapter VIII of the Act), inter 
alia, states that no person shall transport from any Port 
or any checkpost or from any other place any 
consignment of goods, except in accordance with such 
restrictions and conditions, as may be prescribed. The 
C important words which occur in Section 68(1) of the Act 
are "no person". It does not refer to the word 
"transporter". This aspect is of some significance 
because Section 68(1) of the Act puts a restriction on the 
movement of goods. The checkposts are designed and 
D meant to prevent the evasion of sales tax and other dues. 
This restriction stands lifted subject to the compliance of 
certain provisions of the Act. Under Section 68(3) of the 
Act, any consignment of goods may be transported by 
any person after he furnishes in the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.