Railway city booking agency treated as part of railway; factual finding on custody upheld in writ review

A railway city booking agency was treated as falling within the statutory expression "railway" because the definition was broad enough to cover offices and works constructed for railway purposes, and the agency operated as an extended hand or sub-office for booking and movement of traffic. The text also notes that goods in transit from the serving station to the agency remained under railway custody for the relevant protection, while the taxing authority could still verify the declared destination. The Deputy Commissioner's finding on actual destination and custody was treated as a factual finding, and no writ interference was considered warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a city booking agency of the railway falls within the expression "railway" under the relevant railways legislation, and whether goods booked from an outstation and in transit to such agency remained in the custody of the railway so as to attract the protection under the sales tax enactment.

Analysis: The statutory definition of "railway" was held to be wide enough to include offices and other works constructed for the purposes of or in connection with a railway. On the materials placed before the Court, including the railway manual and the contractual arrangement governing the city booking agency, the agency functioned as an extended hand or sub-office of the railway for booking and movement of traffic. The Court also noted that the protection for goods in railway custody would apply while the consignment was being moved from the serving station to the city booking agency, but the existence of that protection did not eliminate the taxing authority's power to check whether the goods were being transported to the stated destination. The Deputy Commissioner's contrary finding on the actual destination and custody was treated as a finding of fact, which was not fit for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The city booking agency was treated as part of the railway for the relevant purpose, but the writ challenge failed because the impugned seizure was upheld on the factual finding regarding destination and custody, and no interference under writ jurisdiction was warranted.

---