Ombir Singh vs The State of Bihar and Others

This is a very small issue which is being kept lingering by the Sales Tax department without any cause and perhaps more on the ground of red tape.

The facts are not in issue. A consignment where, the consignor was one M/s Sonelal Ram Chandra, Gandhi Chauk, Madhubani was seized as it was being carried in a Truck bearing registration No. UHQ-829. The name of the truck driver was Ombir Singh and he carried a licence from the Union Territory, Delhi.

Whatever be the reasons the vehicle was seized on 15th April, 1995. It appears that the sales tax department indicated to either the consignor or the driver of the truck that a penalty be paid upon which the goods or the truck could f be released. Thus within 48 hours that is on 17th April, 1995 a penalty of Rs. 37,360/- was paid. The imposition off penalty was challenged, as the matter was taken up in appeal. The Appellant was driver of the truck but it is on record that the affidavit accompanying the appeal had been sworn by a partner of the firm M/s Sonelal Ram Chandra. Between the Petitioner''s counsel and the State counsel the present facts are not in issues.

Now the question is of refund. Reply was given by the department that the person who deposited the penalty should apply for the refund. The question (sic) how would the consignor locate the driver who deposited the penalty six years ago? In the appeal, the affidavit was of representative of the consignion. Wherther in the department of sales tax somebody should have inquired that when he truck had been hired by a consignor for he transportation of goods, a contract of (sic) was in duration and the position of (sic) was that of a bailor. The driver, in (sic) he was the owner of the vehicle or (sic) was at best a bailee. The (sic) had not seen delivery. In so far as his concerned, as his obligation (sic) reasonable care of the goods (sic) deliver them to whoever the consignee (sic) liability to keep proper papers of (sic) goods remains.

In the circumstances, having acknowledged in the counter affidavit that (sic) department is prepared to refund the amount after the appeal challenging the penalty had succeeded not to deliver the (sic) on a technicality that only the (sic) may receive the refund is red tape. (sic) even the department knows that (sic) bailor of the goods was the consignor, he department may satisfy itself that the (sic) is going to the correct person as to (sic) had entered into a contract of bail mend put an end of this controversy (sic) the issue of making a refund is no (sic) in issue. Suffice it to say that the (sic) will carry the statutory interest as has been provided in cases of refund (sic) Bihar Finance Act, 1981.

Mr. A.N. Singh, S.C. 8 assures the Court that upon certified copy of the (sic) being placed and the refund being for by the consignor of the goods, he refund will be processed within a (sic) thereafter. The petition is allowed (sic) cost.