Finality of title to goods bars re-opening ownership in later tax proceedings; sale proceeds must be released.

A finally determined question of title to goods cannot be reopened in later proceedings between the same parties. Here, the Tribunal had already held that the appellant was the owner of the goods and entitled to seek release, and that finding had attained finality. The revenue authorities, including on remand, could not reject ownership on the contrary footing, and the High Court could not re-decide the same issue. Ownership was also not displaced merely because the transport document named the purchaser. The seizure and attachment based on a contrary assumption of title were therefore unsustainable, and the sale proceeds had to be released to the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant retained title and ownership in the goods so as to seek their release and claim the sale proceeds, and whether the authorities could re-open that concluded question while proceeding under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The Trade Tax Tribunal had already held that the appellant was the owner of the gambier and therefore had locus standi to seek release of the goods. That finding was not challenged and had attained finality. In that situation, the authorities on remand could not reject the appellant's claim on the contrary footing that it was not the owner, and the High Court also could not re-decide the same issue between the same parties. The Court further held that ownership could not be denied merely because the consignment note named the purchaser, and that the appellant was not concerned with any subsequent intra-State dealings by the purchaser. The seizure and later attachment based on a contrary assumption of ownership were therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The appellant's title and ownership in the goods stood concluded in its favour, and the respondents were bound to release the sale proceeds to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A question of title to goods that has been finally determined between the parties cannot be reopened by the revenue authorities or the court in subsequent proceedings, and the named consignee in a transport document does not by itself defeat the transferor's ownership where the prior adjudication has concluded the issue in the transferor's favour.

---