JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.
1. The present revision has been filed against the order dated January 21, 1997 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Varansai, in Second Appeal No. 308 of 1997, relating to assessment year 1995-96.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the opposite party is acting as city booking agency under the supervision and control of Railways. It appears on March 3, 1996, that the Trade Tax Officer (Mobile Squad), Mirzapur, checked the Vehicle No. D.S.D. 7713 in which 15 items of brass utensils were being sent from city booking agency, Mirzapur to Railway Station, Mirzapur. No document (bilty/chalan) was found in the survey/checking. The goods were detained and subsequently it was released on deposit of cash security of Rs. 18,000. The application filed by the opposite party under Section 13A(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was rejected. However, in the appeal filed under Section 10 of the Act, the Tribunal had held that the goods were being booked by the city booking agency which was under the supervision and control of the Railway authorities and for all practical purposes, the custody of the goods would be treated to be that of Railways and, therefore, it could not be seized. The Tribunal had directed for unconditional release of the goods.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party.
4. It is not in dispute that the goods were booked by the opposite party acting as booking agency of the Railways and the goods were being transported from the office of booking agency to the Railways when it was intercepted. In view of the decision of division Bench in the case of Union of India, through General Manager/ Northern Railway v. Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Kanpur [1998] 109 STC 1 (All.) ; 1997 UPTC 997 wherein it is held that if the goods are booked from an out-station to the city booking agency, they will continue to be in custody of the railway while they are being transported from the serving station to the city booking agency from where the goods are to be delivered to the consignees and to such goods-in-transit, protection as envisaged by Sub-section (8) of Section 28A of the Act will be available.
5. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal had not committed any error in law in holding that custody of the goods belonged to the Railway and no question of its seizure arose. The impugned order does not call for any interference. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed.