JUDGMENT P. K. SEN, J. (Chairman). This application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, which is in the nature of a writ application, is at the instance of a registered dealer and is directed against purported interception and detention of vehicle No. OR-05D-9015 loaded with various goods by the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section on November 4, 2000. The petitioner's case is that the above truck was loaded with pepper and it was detained at Howrah and on verification of the way bill along with other documents, the documents were seized. Subsequently respondent No. 1 checked the goods and came to a finding that those were undervalued and the truck was taken to their office and was seized. On being aggrieved by such seizure, the instant application has been filed before this Tribunal. Mr. S. K. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted before us that an important question of law is involved in this application inasmuch as, according to him, the order of the Commercial Tax Officer was bad in law and he further submits that when the way bill and other documents were duly endorsed at the Chichira Check-post, the subsequent interception was without jurisdiction. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that even if there was any undervaluation of the goods, the same was done by the consignor and this petitioner cannot be held liable for such under-invoicing the bill. When the truck loaded with pepper reached Chichira Check-post the driver on demand produced all the papers including the way bill and those were duly endorsed by the checking official and, therefore, any subsequent checking or interception by the officials of the same Directorate is bad and there was no ground for such interception. As against this, the learned State Representative submits that defect, if there be any, has been done away with by recent amendment. As against this, the learned State Representative submits that defect, if there be any, has been done away with by recent amendment. In this connection learned State Representative has drawn our attention to sub-rules (10) and (11) of rule 212 which run as follows : "(10) Where, upon verification made under sub-rule (9), and on searching the vehicle or opening the container or packages, if necessary - (a) the description, quantity, weight or value of the goods in any consignment is found by the authority referred to in sub-rule (9) to be at variance with the description, quantity, weight or value of the goods disclosed in the way bill; or (b) the documents presented in respect of the goods in any consignment is found by the authority referred to in sub-rule (9) to be false or incorrect, either in respect of the description, quantity or weight of such consignment of goods, or the value thereof; or (c) the consignor or consignee of the consignment of goods is shown to be a dealer registered under the Act, while the records available in the office of the appropriate assessing authority do not show the existence of such a dealer, such authority shall prepare a report in the presence of the driver or person-in-charge of the vehicle and get such report countersigned by him, or where the driver or person-in-charge of the vehicle is not available for any reason, such authority shall prepare a report in the presence of one witness after explaining to him the contents of the report countersigned by him, and shall, thereafter, seize the consignment of goods under section 70 for contravention of the provisions of section 68. (11) Any infringement of any provision of this rule by a person, casual trader or dealer in respect of any consignment of goods imported or brought into West Bengal by him on his own account or by the driver or person-in-charge of a road vehicle transporting such consignment of goods across or beyond any check-post in West Bengal shall be deemed to be a contravention of the provisions of section 68 by such person, casual trader or dealer himself." Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to an unreported (Since reported in [2001] 122 STC 494 (Cal.) (Bhabaneswar Singh v. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section) decision of the High Court made in W.B.T.T. 10 of 2000 and seeks to impress that in the said judgment the division Bench presided over by Justice S. B. Sinha has taken note of the provisions of sub-rule (10) of rule 212. But on perusal of the said judgment we do not find that sub-rule (10) was referred to in the said judgment. The case as referred to above is on a different point where there was no challenge or reference to the provisions of sub-rule (10) or (11) and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the court also took notice of the said provisions as made out in sub-rule (10) or (11). In this connection learned State Representative has drawn our attention to a decision of a division Bench presided over by Justice S. B. Sinha reported in AIR 1998 Cal. 288 (Jaya Sen v. Sujit Kr. Sarkar) wherein the division Bench observed that a decision is operative for what it decides and not for what can logically be deduced therefrom. Even a slightest the distinction in fact or additional fact makes a lot of difference in decision making process. In a 5-Judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 207 (Krishna Kumar v. Union of India) it was observed that a doctrine of precedent, that is being bound by a previous decision, is limited to the decision itself and as to what is necessarily involved in it. It does not mean that this Court is bound by the various reasons given in support of it, especially when they contain "propositions wider than the case itself required". The enunciation of the reason or principle upon which a question before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. Therefore, the division Bench judgment as referred to by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, cannot have any application so far as this case is concerned because in that judgment the provisions of sub-rule (10) or (11) were never referred to, nor there was any discussion. Simply by presumption or inference something which their Lordships never intended cannot be drawn. Simply by presumption or inference something which their Lordships never intended cannot be drawn. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that once the documents, particularly the way bill, were duly endorsed by the officials of the Commercial Tax Directorate, subsequent verification of the said documents is not permissible by officers of the same Directorate. But it is not a question of subsequent verification. It is a question of undervaluing the consignment. In a recent judgment the Supreme Court observed which is reported in [2000] 117 STC 315 (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. P.T. Enterprises) at 317 that if declaration of consignor is incorrect as to the value of the goods with reference to market value, the check-post officer is entitled to issue notice and impose penalty. Now in this case the officer on verification found that the consignment was undervalued. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that once it was duly endorsed by the respondent's employees, it cannot be reopened at a different check-post. But it is not a question of reopening. It is a question of verification and to check the valuation of the consignment. If it is found that there is an attempt to evade payment of tax and if it is apparent that there was such an attempt, the checking official has every right to verify the way bill and other papers. Now in the instant case it is alleged by the respondents, as appearing from the affidavit-in-opposition, that the vehicle was carrying 134 bags of black pepper and price was shown at the rate of Rs. 110 per kg., which, according to the respondents, was grossly undervalued and according to them the prevailing market value within the neighbourhood would be between Rs. 218 to Rs. 245. In any case it is apparent that there was an attempt, rather they had evaded payment of tax and, therefore, the authority was within its right to check the way bill and other documents. The provisions of sub-rule (10) of rule 212 gives such authority to the respondents and the respondents were within their right to intercept the vehicle. In that view of the matter, we find that the provisions of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 have been violated and, therefore, the respondents have every right to enforce the provisions of section 69 of the said Act. In that view of the matter, we find that the provisions of section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 have been violated and, therefore, the respondents have every right to enforce the provisions of section 69 of the said Act. When this application was admitted, we find that the goods were released on furnishing security. Upon a consideration of all aspects of the case we do not find anything wrong in the order for interception and thus there is nothing to interfere with the order of the respondent which was under challenge before this Tribunal. Since there is no merit in this application, we are of the view that this application should be rejected. Accordingly, this application under section 8 of the Act is rejected. We do not make any order for costs. D. BHATTACHARYYA (Technical Member). - I agree. Application dismissed.