JUDGMENT ANIRUDDHA BOSE J. The subject of challenge in the present writ petition is seizure of certain goods and consequent imposition of penalty upon the petitioner under the provisions of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (described henceforth as "the said Act"). The petitioner, a partnership-firm, is a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It is the petitioner's case that a Mumbai based firm, Pioneer Sales, had despatched to the petitioner as its agent little over ten thousand kilograms of poppy seeds for sale on commission basis. These poppy seeds were originally imported from Turkey, as pleaded by the petitioner. The penalty was initially imposed upon seizure of the said goods, on allegation of violation of the provisions of sections 68 and 73 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The default of the petitioner was in their failure to produce a valid way bill, as stipulated in rule 212(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. The case of the petitioner in brief is that before importing the said goods, the petitioner had obtained the way bill from the concerned authority. The same, however, was valid till January 12, 2005. The goods in question reached the Chichira Check-post on February 25, 2005. As the validity period of the way bill had expired on January 12, 2005, the vehicle was detained. Under cover of a letter dated February 26, 2005, the petitioner was granted time till 4 p.m. of February 28, 2005, to produce the way bill. It is the petitioner's case that February 26 and 27, 2005 were a Saturday and a Sunday respectively and the petitioner could obtain fresh way bill only on February 28, 2005 upon surrendering the way bill which had lapsed. But the petitioner could reach the Chichira Check-post only on 6 p.m. on February 28, 2005. The delay, as pleaded by the petitioner was on account of the fact that the way bill was issued on February 28, 2005 at about 1.30 p.m. and the rest of the time was spent in transit, between Kolkata and Chichira. By that time, however, an order of seizure of the goods was passed under section 70(1) of the said Act. Thereafter, an order was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Chichira Check-post imposing a penalty of Rs. By that time, however, an order of seizure of the goods was passed under section 70(1) of the said Act. Thereafter, an order was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Chichira Check-post imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,41,171 (rupees Five lac forty one thousand one hundred and seventy one only). The petitioner applied for revision of this order before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who upheld the order of penalty but reduced the quantum of penalty to Rs. 4,68,010 (rupees four lac sixty eight thousand and ten only). The petitioner had approached the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal against this order by way of filing an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. This application was numbered R.N. 148 of 2005. The Tribunal in this application found the seizure to be valid. However, the Tribunal also held : "It is also equally clear that the petitioner had tried his best to comply with the requirements of the statute and he might have produced a valid way bill, had he been given a little more time as provided under section 70(1) of the Act, 1994." The Tribunal disposed of the application being R.N. No. 148 of 2005 with a finding that seizure was valid. On imposition of penalty, Tribunal observed : "Regarding penalty, we are of the view that regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, a liberal view may be taken by the concerned statutory revisional authority, if and when he is approached by the petitioner against the order of the Assistant Commissioner who reduced the penalty to some extent." The seized goods were directed to be released on furnishing a security of Rs. 1.5 lac - 50 per cent of which was to be in cash and 50 per cent by way of bank guarantee. The petitioner thereafter approached the revisional authority being the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kharagpur Range, who further reduced the penalty to Rs. 3,66,000 (rupees three lac and sixty six thousand only). This order was again challenged before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal by the petitioner by filing an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 being R.N. No. 338 of 2005. 3,66,000 (rupees three lac and sixty six thousand only). This order was again challenged before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal by the petitioner by filing an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 being R.N. No. 338 of 2005. This application was disposed of by the Tribunal with the following observation : "As we peruse the impugned order we are not happy in the way the seizure matter has been reintroduced after the matter was finally set at rest by this Tribunal in the order dated March 30, 2005. Having heard both sides and considering facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh in this case as penalty would meet the ends of justice as we observe that we did allow the goods to be released on furnishing security of Rs. 1.5 lakh." This order is now under challenge before us. Mr. S. K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned order mainly on two counts. He has submitted that in computing the period of detention under section 70 of the Act, the intervening Sunday (i.e., February 27, 2005) was to be taken into account. It is his case that the petitioner was required to produce the way bill by 4 p.m. on February 28, 2005 and as February 27, 2005 was admittedly a Sunday, time should have been granted uptil March 1, 2005 for production of the way bill, within which date the way bill was admittedly produced. Thus, the statutory period permitting production of way bill was not allowed. The second limb of his argument is that the petitioner had no intention to evade payment of tax and hence no penalty should have been imposed on them as it could not be held that the petitioner had acted deliberately in defiance of law. For this proposition he has relied on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindusthan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 and a decision of this Court in the case of Maple Exports Private Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section [2002] 39 STA 52. For the same proposition the other case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also a decision of this Court in the case Zarghamuddin Ansari (Anwar) v. Commercial Tax Officer [2001] 38 STA 129. For the same proposition the other case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also a decision of this Court in the case Zarghamuddin Ansari (Anwar) v. Commercial Tax Officer [2001] 38 STA 129. On behalf of the respondents it has been submitted that since there was a finding of the authorities that there was violation of provisions of the statute on the basis of documents filed before them, the court ought not to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the High Court of M.P. in the case of Shaw Wallace and Company Limited v. Sales Tax Officer [2002] 127 STC 61. It is also the case of the respondents that the penalty was imposed for undervaluation of the goods as well, and not only for non-production of the way bill. The petitioner did not produce any material to show that the value of the goods were lower than what was determined by the assessing authority, no case was made out by the petitioner for interference by this Court. The authority relied on in support of this proposition is S. Vayyapuri v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax [2005] 141 STC 229, a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench). The other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Revenue is the decision of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Hindustan Granite [2001] 121 STC 417. We propose to deal with the aspect of the legality of the order of seizure, and consequential imposition of penalty. The main grounds on which the order of seizure has been challenged is that a clear 48 hours time was not given to the petitioner, having regard to the intervening Sunday, and the failure to do so rendered the acts of the authorities invalid. The obligation to present the way bill is contained in rule 212(2) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of the said Rules are relevant in this regard and the said provision is reproduced below : "212. Procedure for transporting consignments of goods across or beyond a check-post other than a Railway station, steamer station, etc. - ..... Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of the said Rules are relevant in this regard and the said provision is reproduced below : "212. Procedure for transporting consignments of goods across or beyond a check-post other than a Railway station, steamer station, etc. - ..... (2) If the driver or person-in-charge of the vehicle transporting any consignment of goods fails to present the way bill in form 42 at the time of entry of such vehicle into the area of a check-post as required by sub-rule (1), such driver or person-in-charge may request the Commercial Tax Officer or Assistant Commercial Tax Officer of such check-post in writing stating therein the reason for not being in possession of such way bill and to allow him time for presentation of the way bill. (3) On the request of the driver or person-in-charge of the vehicle made under sub-rule (2), the Commercial Tax Officer or Assistant Commercial Tax Officer of the check-post shall allow time, not exceeding forty eight hours from the entry of such vehicle, to enable him to present the way bill in form 42 before the expiry of the time allowed by him, and the vehicle with such consignment of goods shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), remain detained till the time of presentation of such way bill or the expiry of the time allowed, whichever is earlier." Having considered such rules in the light of the facts of the present case, we are of the view that no default was made on the part of the Revenue Authorities so far as granting of time is concerned. Sub-rule (3) of rule 212, which has been quoted above requires the statutory authority to allow time not exceeding 48 hours from the entry of such vehicle to enable the concerned person to present the way bill. Admittedly, in the present case the vehicle had reached the Chichira check-post on February 25, 2005. This was a Thursday. Thus, even if we allow exclusion of the Sunday, the stipulated 48 hours from the date of entry of the vehicle expired on Monday February 28, 2005. The petitioner failed to produce the way bill within the time prescribed on Monday, February 28, 2005. Next comes the question of imposition of penalty. This was a Thursday. Thus, even if we allow exclusion of the Sunday, the stipulated 48 hours from the date of entry of the vehicle expired on Monday February 28, 2005. The petitioner failed to produce the way bill within the time prescribed on Monday, February 28, 2005. Next comes the question of imposition of penalty. The authorities are uniform on the proposition of law that penalty ought not to be imposed only because there is provision for penalty for non-compliance of certain statutory provisions. In this regard, the following paragraph from the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindusthan Steel Ltd. [1970] 25 STC 211, is relevant : "... An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even, if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." This authority has also been followed by this Court in the case of Zarghamuddin Ansari (Anwar) [2001] 38 STA 129 : "On a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the materials on record it appears to us that while correctly indicating the law relating to seizure and penalty, in the ultimate analysis the learned Tribunal seems to have lost sight of the main issue as to the evasion of payment of tax by the petitioner or his intention to do so. Since the petitioner had failed to produce the documents referred to in section 73 of the Act and rule 214C of the Rules within the stipulated period of 48 hours from the time of detention, the seizure of the goods by the Commercial Tax Officer was justified, but the question is whether penalty could have been imposed merely on account of such seizure. Whether penalty could be imposed depended on the facts and circumstances of the case and proper satisfaction being arrived at by the authorities that the petitioner had intended to evade payment of tax. Paradoxically, while the Commercial Tax Officer and the revisional forums relied heavily on the delivery challans produced by the driver of the vehicle in imposing penalty and confirming the same, the learned Tribunal, while choosing not to interfere with the imposition of penalty observed that the said delivery challans were extraneous and irrelevant to the carriage or transportation of goods from West Bengal to a place outside the State." The requirement to establish intention to evade tax for imposition of penalty has been confirmed by this Court also in the case of Maple Exports Private Ltd. [2002] 39 STA 52. The decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Shaw Wallace and Company Limited [2002] 127 STC 61, in our opinion cannot be made applicable in the present case. We are deciding this matter on admitted facts and purely on principle of law and the issue of disputed of questions of facts does not arise in the present writ petition. So far as the allegation of undervaluation of the goods, in our opinion this defence to sustain imposition of penalty is not available to the revenue authorities. The seizure was effected because of non-production of way bill and the statutory fora as also the Tribunal had proceeded in this matter for adjudicating the legality of the seizure and imposition of penalty on the ground of non-production of way bill only. The question of undervaluation was not an issue, but this was considered by the authority of the first instance only for the purpose of quantifying penalty. We have no material before us from which we can come to the conclusion that the allegation against the petitioner related to undervaluation of the goods in question, which culminated in seizure of the goods and imposition of penalty. We have no material before us from which we can come to the conclusion that the allegation against the petitioner related to undervaluation of the goods in question, which culminated in seizure of the goods and imposition of penalty. Thus, in our opinion this is no more open to the revenue authorities to raise this issue for the first time before this Court. Thus, the decision of S. Vayyapuri [2005] 141 STC 229 (MP), has no application in the present case. The case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Hindusthan Granites [2001] 121 STC 417 (RTT) is an authority as to when commission of offence under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 is complete. The factual context, on the basis of which this judgment was delivered is entirely different from the factual context of the present case. Having considered the facts of this case and the decisions relied upon by the respective parties, in our opinion, the imposition of penalty was not justified as no case of intention to evade tax has been made out by the revenue authorities at any stage in the proceeding. On the other hand in R.N. No. 148 of 2005 the Tribunal had observed that the petitioner had tried his best to comply with the statute. Moreover, the admitted position being that the petitioner indeed had produced the way bill on the stipulated date, albeit two hours later than the time stipulated, that in our opinion would constitute substantial compliance with the directive of the revenue authority. The petitioner ought to be given the benefit of transit time, there being substantial distance between Kolkata and Chichira. Since the basic ingredient for imposition of penalty, i.e., some mala fide motive on the part of the dealer has not been established in the present case, imposition of penalty on the petitioner would not be justified. Under these circumstances, we set aside that part of the order passed by the Tribunal in R.N. No. 338 of 2005 passed on 3rd August, 2005 by which a penalty of Rs. 1.5 lac was held to be sufficient. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of imposition of penalty is set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Asok Kumar Ganguly J. - I agree.