Hajee Abdul Lathif vs State of Karnataka

R.S. Chakrabhavi, M.-This appeal is directed against the order passed on 8-1-1978 by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore Division in Appeal No. BN. 88/76-77.

On 22-12-1976 at about 1-40 p.m., goods vehicle No. QTX 5845 coming towards Bangalore was intercepted and inspected at the Tumkur Road Sales Tax Check Post. The goods truck was laden with 550 tins of ground nut oil. On the ground that the person in charge of the goods vehicle contravened the provisions of section 28A(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act), the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in charge of the Check Post levied a penalty of Rs. 3,000 under section 28A(4) of the Act. The failure of the first appeal against the order of levy of penalty led to the present appeal.

The appellant is a commission agent to whom the intercepted goods had been consigned for sale. Since the appellant was not the owner of the goods vehicle or the person in charge of the vehicle or the owner of the goods in the vehicle at the time of the inspection, we entertain a doubt about the appellant''s competance to question the impugned levy of pedalty in appeal. Upon our consideration of the arguments on the point we hold that the appeal is incompetent.

Since the appeal is filed under section 28A(7) of the Act, it is necessary that the appellant should be an aggrieved person. The goods in the intercepted vehicle had been consigned by M/s. Patel Oil Mill Co., Upeeta, Gujarat to the appellant for sale on commission, The rights and liabilities of the appellant in respect of the goods would arise only upon the arrival of the goods at the destination. Any loss or damage caused to the goods in transit and any penalty or forfeiture incurred in respect of the goods in transit by a person in-charge of them were no concern of the appellant. The appellant''s only rights were to obtain delivery of the goods upon arrival at destination, to retain possession of the goods for sale and to realise commission if and when the goods were sold. The appellant could not have had any right in the goods in transit. The interception of the vehicle carrying the goods and the imposition of penalty under section 28A(4) of the Act, even if illegal, could not be any injury caused to the appellant. ''Injury'' is of the essence of grievance for the purpose of an appeal under section 28A(7) of the Act. It is argued for the appellant that the interception of the goods in transit affected the business of the appellant as a commission agent and that the appellant is therefore an aggrieved person. The possible gain of commission from the sale of consignments to be received from the principal of another place, is not a right, but a mere expectancy. Interference with such expectancy before the goods reach the commission agent, is no legal injury. The commission agent cannot therefore be a person aggrieved by the stoppage of the goods in transit and levy of penalty under section 28-A(4) of the Act.

To a proceding under section 28-A(4) of the Act normally the owner of the goods vehicle which is stopped or the person in charge of such vehicle on the one side and the check post officer on the other are parties. In W.H. Deeth & Co., vs. The Assistant Commercial Tax officer, 30 STC 233, the owner of the goods is also treated as a person aggrieved for the purpose of the pursuit of a remedy by way of a writ. We have no support in law or logic to bring within the meaning of the expression ''person aggrieved'' even a commission agent who had no right whatever in the goods at the time of the levy of penalty under section 28-A(4) of the Act.

The appellant lacks the jural competence to file any appeal under the Act against the impugned imposition of penalty. The appeal is therefore dismissed.