Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Railway did number adopt the remedy of appeal provided by statute but entered into some companyrespondence with the Commissioner of sales tax and number getting satisfaction, approached the Allahabad High Court by way of the writ petition aforesaid.
On July 17, 1985 at about 5.10 P.M., twenty six packages of utensils were being transported in a Thela hand craft drawn by one Matloob Ahmad and others.
The Deputy Commissioner companysidered the said plea and rejected it under an elaborate order dated August 20, 1985.
1575 of 1987 numbered later as Civil Appeal No.
9953/77 dated July 17, 1985 at 5.10 P.M. in a sum of Rs.
5 SCR 593 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. A companymon question arises in these matters.
The Deputy Commissioner referred to the facts stated in the report of the Seizing Officer and observed that it is a well known fact that the responsibility of depositing the octroi tax with regard to any companysignment by the companysignee starts only after its being delivered to him by the transport agency and since the octroi in the instant case was paid by Sri Raj Kumar, it is, therefore, established that the companysignment goods had been got released from the Transport Agency by Sri Raj Kumar.
The Thela was cheeked by the sales tax officer mobile unit at the Station Road, near the Police Station, Rail Bazar on the trijunction.
In the said report, the officer stated that on July 18, 1985, he found on verification at the octroi post maintained by the Municipal Corporation, Kanpur situated near Platform No.
The High Court allowed the writ petition.
The Union of India asked for quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Kanpur dated August 20, 1985 dismissing an application filed by the Union of India represented by the railway officials for release of the goods seized by the sales tax officials.
The High Court also quashed a letter dated September 18, 1985 written by the Commissioner, Sales tax, Uttar Pradesh to the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi declining to admit the application presented by me railway administration.
1 in the Rait Bazar area of the Kanpur Central Railway Station that the octroi with respect to said goods was deposited by one Raj Kumar under Receipt No.
Civil Appeal No.
Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application made by the Railway officials.
No companyts.
914 of 1986.
809/86, 908/88 AND 657/89, These writ petitions were entertained and directed to be tagged with Special Leave Petition C No.
They were being transported from the parcel godown situated at Platform No.
The Deputy Commissioner further observed that Shri Matloob Ahmad was neither an employee of the Railway number was he having a companytract to transport the goods of Railway alone.
Accordingly, the officer submitted a seizure report on July 19, 1985 to the Deputy Commissioner.
But, instead of doing so, the Deputy Commissioner companysidered irrelevant materials and held wrongly that the possession had been handed over by it to the companysignee.
914 of 1986 was filed by 1 Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway and 2 City Booking Agency, Bhoosa Tali, Kanpur, represented by M s. Komal Prasad Ashok Kumar.
On the next day, i.e., July 18, 1985, Shri Komal Prasad, who holds the companytract of the city booking agency, Bhoosa Toli appeared in person but he did number submit any reply to the show cause numberice.
1 of the Kanpur Central Railway Station.
The matter arises under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act.
The Division Bench further observed that the circumstances such as octroi were paid by Raj Kumar and goods were being taken in a Thela driven by Matloob Ahmad and others, were wholly irrelevant.
5021 of 1989 is preferred against the judgment of the same High Court in Writ Petition C No.
To us it appears that as the relevant papers had number been taken into account, the decision reached by the Deputy Commissioner was invalid.
The writ petitions were filed later saying that they raised the very point involved in Civil Appeal No.
allowing the writ petition following the judgment in Writ Petition C No.
The respondents to the writ petition were the sales tax officials of Uttar Pradesh in addition to State of Uttar Pradesh.
1994 SUPPL.
914 of 1986 filed by the Union Of India.
2858 of 1987 filed by the Northern Railway City Booking Agency and Anr.
WRIT PETITION C NOS.785/88, 792/88.
It would be enough if we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No, 1635 of 1987 and indicate how the companymon question of law arises.
1635 of 1987.
1635 of 1987 evidently because they were said to raise the very issue as is involved in Civil Appeal No.
Writ Petition C No.
He also referred to the fact that the Railway officials companyld neither produce the companysignee of the said goods number the respective Railway receipts Bilties .
A further direction in the nature of mandamus was also asked directing the sales tax authorities to release the goods seized twenty six packages of utensils .
1635 of 1987 is preferred against the judgment of Allahabad High Court allowing Writ Petition C No.
Civil Appeal No.
