SATISH CHANDRA MITTAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard both sides. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

(2.) THE petitioner is a city booking agency at Hapur, District Ghaziabad. It appears that certain consignments of goods amenable to the trade tax were received in Hapur and were released by the petitioner from the petitioner's agency office to the persons carrying counterfoil of the goods receipts, against which such goods are normally released by railways. Later, the Trade Tax Department of U. P. Government required the petitioner to supply the particulars of consignees of Hapur to whom the goods had been released. These addresses of the consignees as mentioned in the goods receipts were supplied by the petitioner to the Trade Tax Department.

(3.) THE defence of the petitioner is that normally neither the petitioner as city booking agency nor the railways, carrying goods or parcels, deliver such goods or parcels at the residence or place of business of consignee. Such goods are normally released (i) by the railway at the railway station or parcel office and (ii) by city booking agency at their office to the person appearing at the office for taking delivery along with goods receipt. Therefore, neither railway not city booking agency is under the obligation to physically verify the addresses of consignee or consigner, inasmuch as even consigners normally deliver consignments to the railways at their booking office and normally consignments are not collected by railways from the residence or place of business of consigners.