High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Saiya Transport Pvt. Ltd. Thru' M.D. Devendra Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT TAX No. 1079 of 2006  RD-AH 11280 (11 July 2006)
Civil Misc. W.P. (Tax) No. 1079 of 2006
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
The petitioner transport company was transporting certain goods (tin plates) on a motor vehicle through the State of Uttar Pradesh and in accordance with section 28 B read with Rule 87 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, a transit pass was obtained by the petitioner at the entry check post of the trade tax department and was surrendered at the exit check post. It is not the case of the respondent department that the vehicle did not cross the territory of Uttar Pradesh and did not reach the exit check post within the transit time limit. It is also not the case of the respondent department that the goods carried by the vehicle were unloaded anywhere within the territory of Uttar Pradesh. It is also not the case of the respondent department that the goods which were found in the vehicle at the exit check post did not tally in respect of quality or quantity or specification with the goods which had entered from the entry check post.
A plain reading of Rule 87(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules, 1948, leaves no doubt that in case of goods being transported through the territory of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the trade tax department is only concerned with ensuring that the consignment, which has entered the State, is taken out of the State intact. The relevant words of the said sub-Rule are "in order to ensure that the consignments being taken out of the State are the same as mentioned in the trip sheet". The trade tax department, in such cases where goods are merely passing through the State, is not concerned with th origin of the goods or their destination beyond the State of Uttar Pradesh. On this issue the following authorities may be seen:
(i)2003 UPTC 1218, Madhya Bharat Transport Corner Versus Commissioner, Trade Tax;
(ii)2005 NTN (Vol. 28) 129, Commissioner, Trade Tax Versus S/s Shagun Khan.
The officers of the respondent department in this case appear to have been over enthusiastic in performance of their duties and have detained the goods of the petitioner on the irrelevant reasons about the source and origin of the goods and the addresses and registration of the consigner and consignee.
We have no doubt that the petitioner has been harassed in this episode without any valid reason and, therefore, deserves immediate relief.
We, therefore, quash the detention/seizure order dated 24.6.2006, Annexure 7 to this petition, and direct the respondent No. 3 to release the entire goods seized under the aforesaid order to the petitioner forthwith.
The writ petition is allowed as above with costs.
Dated : July 11, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.