TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 878
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondents to the amended paragraphs. 3. On 10.9.2013 we passed following orders in Writ Tax No.797 of 2013:- "Connect with Writ Tax No.674 of 2013, M/s Star Carrying Company, Delhi v. State of U.P. & Anr. Learned Standing Counsel is allowed two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. List for admission/ hearing on 24th September, 2013 on the question as to whether the transporter is person aggrieved and is entitled to release of goods, which have been detained and seized and can file representation and appeals against the orders. On merits of the matter we find that though the period of detention of the trucks was unreasonably long, the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing representation under Section 48 (7) of the U.P. Va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 29.08.2013. (iii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 4 & 5 to return the papers (taken in possession from the drivers of the vehicle) relating to the goods in question. (iv) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner." 5. On 18.8.2013 during the course of transportation of goods from Delhi to Uttrakhand, immediately on its entry into the State of UP on National Highway, the vehicle in question was intercepted by a team of Commercial Tax authorities headed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is stated that even after pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a common understanding that the release of goods can only be demanded by the owner of the goods, held that a transporter cannot be a person aggrieved against the order passed under Sections 42, 55, 56 or a decision under Section 59 or a direction under sub-section (7) of Section 48 to file an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 57 (4) of the Act. 9. It is submitted by Shri Aloke Kumar that learned Single Judge ignored the provisions of Sections 48 (7), 50 (4), 52, and 54 (15) of the Act and also ignored the provision of Section 57 (4), which provides for an appeal by any person and which would include a transporter. 10. It is submitted that a Division Bench of this Court, in Shiv Shakti Trading Co. vs. State of UP and others 2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., a person aggrieved by an order, against which an appeal does not lie under Section 55, is entitled to file an application for revision. We may also refer to Section 57 (4) of the U.P. VAT Act, which reads as under:- "57. Tribunal.- (1) ... ... (4)Any person aggrieved by an order passed under section 42, section 55, section 56, a decision under section 59 or a direction under the proviso of sub-section (7) of section 48 may, within ninety days from the date of service of the copy of such order, decision or direction on him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal : Provided that where order passed by the appellate authority under section 55 is an order in respect of demand of any security, not being security demanded for release of goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relief for release of goods without deposit as provided under the proviso, would not arise. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that a person aggrieved against an order of seizure has a remedy under Section 57 (4) of the U.P. VAT Act. We, therefore, approve the view taken in M/s. Rida International (supra) to which one of us (Justice Prakash Krishna) was a Member." 11. We have further examined the provisions of the Act, and find that sub-section (7) of Section 48 does not only refer to dealer, it also refers to the person incharge of the vehicle and that would include a driver or transporter as well. Section 52 of the Act also uses the same words, namely the person incharge of the vehicle to carry such documents as may be prescribe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R 1959 Madras 502 A.M. Mohd. Ishaok vs. State of Madras, Division Bench of Madras High Court has also expressed the same view while interpreting Section 39 of the Act and held that whenever actual delivery of goods is made in terms of contractual obligation, there shall be presumption with regard to delivery of goods to the buyer. While considering Section 39 (1) of the Sales of Goods Act, Madras High Court considered the definition of sale given in BENJAMIN'S Sale of Goods. Their lordships held that the carrier constituted as an agent of the buyer for accepting delivery of goods on his behalf. There appears to be no room of doubt that the goods were delivered to the buyer in terms of contact with RGTIL through its pipeline at Gadimoga."....