MOHAMMED ASHRAFF Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner is a dealer in iron and steel, doing the business under the name and style of 'premier Steels', at Jews Street, Ernakulam. He made an inter state purchase of 10. 030 mt. of M. S. channels worth Rs. 1,16,348/- from M/s. Bellary Steel Rolling Mills, Ananthapuram Road, Bellar, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the 'consignor' ). THE goods were covered by invoice No. 1275, delivery note No. 880 and despatch advice dated 21. 10. 1993. He also purchased 10. 060 mt. of M. S. channels from the same consignor and transport was covered by gate pass, delivery note, invoice etc. dated 21. 10. 1993. THE goods purchased by the first petitioner was sold in transit to the second petitioner, partner of M/s. General Engineering Industries, Athani, Kakkanad.

(2.) EXT. P1 is the copy of the gate pass in respect of the first consignment referred to above and EXTs. P2 and P3 are its related invoice and delivery note respectively. EXT. P4 is the copy of the despatch advice in respect of the said consignment. EXT. P5 is the copy of the invoice dated 23. 10. 1993 showing the transfer of the goods to the second petitioner during transit. Likewise EXTs. P6 and P7 are invoice and despatch advice respectively relating to the second consignment. EXT. P8 is the copy of invoice dated 23. 10. 1993 evidencing the sale of above goods in transit in favour of the second petitioner. However, the second respondent intercepted the vehicles on their movement to Athani. After checking the vehicles, he has issued check reports to the drivers of the vehicles. EXTs. P9 and P10 are the copies of the check reports issued by the second respondent. After issuing these check reports he retained the registration certificates of the vehicles with him alleging that the goods transported by these vehicles should have been delivered at the godown of the first petitioner in Jews Street and the vehicles should not have been moved to Athani. Since the registration certificates have been retained by the second respondent with him, the vehicles could not be put on the road. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed praying to release the registration certificates in respect of the goods carriages bearing registration No TDW 9219 and TAS 7702. It is also prayed to quash the proceedings initiated by the second respondent as per EXTs. P9 and P10.

(3.) THE second respondent points out that the vehicles having national permit are not permitted to pickup or set down goods between two points in the same State. He therefore pleads that the picking up of the goods from Jews Street and setting down them at Athani is against the provisions contained in sub-r. (7) of R. 90 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for short 'the rules'. Sub-s. (12) of S. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 authorises the appropriate authority, for the purpose of encouraging long distance inter State road transport, to grant in a State national permits in respect of goods carriages. R. 90 of the Rules provides the additional conditions for operating the national permit and one of the conditions is that such vehicles shall not pick up or set down goods between two points situated in the same State other than the home State as provided in sub-r. (7) thereof. This sub-rule cannot be read in isolation, that is to say, if the law relating to sale or purchase of goods in the course of inter state trade and commerce permits such picking up or setting down goods between two points situated in the same State it shall be read along with the said sub-rule. In this context, the contention of the petitioner is that the goods purchased by the first petitioner as per valid documents were sold to the second petitioner in the course of inter state movement of goods. Exts. P5 and P8 invoices uniformly contain the following endorsement "goods sold while in transit by transfer of documents under S. 6 (2) of the CST Act (C Form due)". Exts. P4 and P7 despatch advices issued by the consignor in Karnataka State also contain the following endorsement. " Please make direct delivery to M/s. General Engineering Industries, Kakkanadu and collect the freight from them. " THE second respondent admitted that he had verified the vouchers and also the despatch memos. He had no case that at the time of inspection of the documents after the interception of vehicles the above endorsements were not found in them. THE sale of goods during the transit or in the course of movement is not denied. THE only case is that since the vehicles had been operated on national permits they could not pickup or set down the goods between two points situated in the State of Kerala. In other words, the only reason for seizing the registration certificates is the alleged violation of sub-r. (7) of R. 90 of the Rules. If the sale during the course of movement is permitted under law there is no substance in the contention advanced by the second respondent. If there was a sale in the course of inter state movement of goods, the movement of the vehicles from Jews Street to Athani with the goods cannot be said to be in violation of the sub-r. (7) of R. 90.