CITY BOOKING AGENCY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.M.K. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

(2.) In this bunch of writ petitions, common question of facts and law is involved. Hence, with the consent of the parties' counsel, we proceed to decide these writ petitions by the present common judgment.

(3.) The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the grievance that they have established City Booking Agencies in the city of Lucknow which is a part and partial of the Railway Administration under Section 28-A(8) of the Trade Tax Act. The consignment could not be seized as the goods shall be deemed to be that of the railways. According to petitioners' counsel, the goods of City Booking Agencies have been seized by the Trade Tax Department of the State without taking note of the terms and conditions of the agreement entered with the railways. The 'City Booking Agency' is a part and partial of the railways, hence the Trade Tax Department lacks jurisdiction to seize the goods or impose penalty.