SALES TAX OFFICER KANPUR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 21-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, N.P. SINGH, S.B. MAJMUDAR

Judgment (excerpt)

SALES TAX OFFICER KANPUR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 
NOVEMBER 21, 1994 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 227-Writ petition-Finding of 
fact-Whether Writ Court can interfere with a finding of fact-Held, No, 
unless the finding is based on no evidence or is perverse. 
Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act-Section 13(A) (6) Railways Act, 1989-
C 
Transporting good$ from railway godown to booking agencies claimed to 
be part of ''Railways' '-Relevant material not placed before- Court for 
determining thz question-Matter remitted to High Court. 
Twenty six packages of utensils were being transported in a 'Thela' D 
from the parcel godown of the Central Railway Station. The goods 
being transported were not accompanied by the requisite documents. 
The 'Thela' was checked by the Sales Tax Officer. The goods were 
seized and proceeding were taken u/s 13 (A) (6) of the Uttar Pradesh 
Sales Tax Act. Railways officials applied for release of goods 
contending that in as much as the goods were being transported from E 
Railway godown to the city booking agency, which according to them 
was indeed a part and parcel of the "Railway" as defined in the 
Railway Act, the seizure of the goods was unlawful. The Deputy 
Commissioner rejected the plea under an elaborate order. A finding 
was recorded that the story of transport of the said seized goods to the 
city booking agency is untrue, for the reasons recorded in the order. F 
The Deputy Commissioner was of the opinion that the goods were 
really being taken to some other place and since they were not 
accompanied by the requisite documents/forms, they were liable to be 
seized. 
G 
Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Railway filed 
the writ petition. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the 
petition holding the order of the Deputy Commissioner erroneous. 
Civil Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High 
Court. 
H 
593 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R 
It has been submitted by the Railways that the city booking 
agencies were really part and parcel of the 'Railway' and, therefbre, 
for transporting the goods from the Railways godown to the city 
booking agency, the goods need not be accompanied by documents/ 
forms prescribed by the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act and the Rules 
made thereunder. 
The question raised are: 
(i) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the 
finding of the fact recorded by the Deputy Commissioner in this case? 
(ii) Whether the Railway booking agencies do or do not form ·part 
of the 'railway'? 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD: 1.1 The question whether ~he goods being transported from 
the Railway godown were being in fact transported to city booking 
agency is ~•ways a question of fact. Mere claim to that effect is not 
conclusive. The power of the sales tax authorities to stop and check the 
goods being transported to satisfy themselves that they are being 
validly transported is undoubted. If they are satisfied that the goods 
being transported were imported into the State of Uttar Pradesh but 
that they are not accompanied by the documents/forms required by the 
Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act and the Rules, they are entitled to seize 
the goods and levy the tax and penalty as is provided by law. The said 
power necessarily includes the power to decide the question whether 
the goods in fact were being transported to city. booking agency or to 
some other place. (598 H, 599 B) · 
1.2 In the present case, a finding was recorded by the Deputy 
Commissioner that the story of transport of the said seized goods to the 
city booking agency is untrue, for the several reasons recorded in his 
order. He was of the opinion that the goods were really being taken to 
some other place and since they were not accompanied by the requisite 
documents, they are liable to be seized. The said finding is one of fact 
which could have been and ought to have been questioned'in an appeal 
provided by the Act. (599 C, D) 
... 
1.3 The High Court which decided the matter, interfered with the 
finding of fact without even referring to the several grounds on which it 
was based. The High Court has not even referred to all the reasons and 
I 
SALES TAX OFFICER. v. U. 0. I. [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 
595 
grounds assigned by the Deputy Commissioner and yet set aside his A 
finding. Moreover, a writ Court cannot interfer

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.