Altamas Kabir, Alok Kumar Basu ( 1 ) THE writ application is directed against the order dated January 18, 2002, passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal in Case No. RN-479 of 2001 dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, whereby the petitioner had prayed for setting aside the order of seizure of goods passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, on July 13, 2001 in Seizure Case No. 91/g/6/2001-2002, and for release of the seized goods. ( 2 ) THE petitioner carries on business as a transporter. On 16th June, 2001, the said Commercial Tax Officer, being the respondent No. 1, visited the petitioner's godown and seized all the goods therein on the ground that the same had been under-invoiced. On assessment of the value of the seized goods, the respondent No. 1 by the said order dated July 13, 2001, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,53,390. ( 3 ) AS indicated therein above, the said order of seizure and imposition of penalty was challenged by the petitioner before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal mainly on the ground that in view of the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, read with sub-rule (10) of Rule 212 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, the said respondent No. 1 acted beyond his jurisdiction in effecting seizure of the goods in the petitioner's godown under Section 70 (2) of the aforesaid Act. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal negated the arguments put forward on behalf of the petitioner and held that there was due compliance of the provisions of sections 69 and 70 of the Act in the matter of search and seizure of the goods. ( 5 ) THE arguments as advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal have also been advanced before us by Mr. Sumit Kumar Chakraborty, appearing in support of the writ petitioner. ( 6 ) MR. Chakraborty firstly referred to the provisions of Section 68 (1) of the aforesaid Act which indicates that to ensure that there is no evasion of tax, no person shall transport from any railway station, steamer station, airport, port, post office or any check-post set up under Section 75 or from any other place any consignment of goods except in accordance with such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed. Mr. Chakraborty also referred to Section 69 of the aforesaid Act which provides for interception, detention and search of road vehicles and warehouses. ( 7 ) READING the aforesaid provisions of Rule 212, Mr. Chakraborty urged that sub-rules (1) to (8) of Rule 212 provides for the procedure for transportation of a consignment of goods by a road vehicle across or beyond the check-post in West Bengal and also provides for, interception of the vehicle during the time of transportation. Mr. Chakraborty then submitted that sub-rules (9) and (10) made it very clear that such interception could only be made at the point of time when the goods brought into West Bengal were actually being transported on the vehicle and the same will be evident from sub-rule (10) which provides that upon searching the vehicle or opening the container or packages, the authority concerned shall prepare a report in the presence of the driver or the person-in-charge of the vehicle and get such report counter-signed by him or where the driver or the person-in-charge of the vehicle is not available for any reason, such authority shall prepare a report in the presence of one witness and get the report counter-signed by him. ( 8 ) MR. Chakraborty urged that the said provision would amply indicate that the goods being carried could only be intercepted so long as they were actually being transported on the vehicle in question and that once the goods are unloaded and stored in a warehouse or godown, the provisions of Rule 212 read with Section 70 (2) of the Act would not have any application and the seizure affected under the said provisions in the present case was, therefore, bad and liable to be set aside and the order of penalty was also liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) OPPOSING the writ application, Mr. L. K. Gupta brought to our notice the provisions of Section 69 (b) of the aforesaid Act which empowers the authority concerned, subject to such restrictions as has been prescribed, to search any warehouse or at any other place in which according to his information the transported goods in contravention of the provisions of Section 68 have been stored. Mr. L. K. Gupta brought to our notice the provisions of Section 69 (b) of the aforesaid Act which empowers the authority concerned, subject to such restrictions as has been prescribed, to search any warehouse or at any other place in which according to his information the transported goods in contravention of the provisions of Section 68 have been stored. Mr. Gupta also laid emphasis on sub-rule (9) of Rule 212 which provides that the Commercial Tax Officer or Assistant Commercial Tax Officer of a check-post empowered to endorse the way bill in form 42 or such Assistant Commissioner or Commercial Tax Officer, as the Commissioner may authorise to proceed under Section 69 outside the check-post may verify correctness of the way bills and other documents relating to the consignment of goods being transported in respect of description, quantity, weight or value of such consignment of goods. Mr. Gupta urged that the said provision has also been considered by the learned Tribunal which upon interpretation of the expression "outside the check-post" held that the same also includes godown or warehouse. ( 10 ) MR. Gupta submitted that in fact reference to Section 69 in sub-rule (9) of Rule 212 clearly indicates that search of any warehouse or any other place where the goods transported had been stored was permissible, as has been done in the instant case. Mr. Gupta submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal was correct in all respects and did not merit any interference in the present writ application. ( 11 ) HAVING considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are inclined to agree with Mr. Gupta that Rule 212 read with Section 69 clearly empowers the authority concerned not only to intercept a consignment while being transported on a vehicle but also empowers the authority concerned to verify the correctness of the way bill and other documents relating to the goods in respect of description, quantity, weight or value. In the present case, the goods stored in the godown were found to be undervalued and were accordingly seized in keeping with Section 70 (2) of the aforesaid Act. ( 12 ) HAVING regard to our aforesaid finding, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the provisions of law and the order passed by it does not merit any interference by us. ( 12 ) HAVING regard to our aforesaid finding, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has correctly assessed the provisions of law and the order passed by it does not merit any interference by us. ( 13 ) THE writ application is accordingly dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.