IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Sales Tax Revision No.9 of 2002 (Old No.242 of 1992) M/s Blue Dart Express Pvt. Ltd. … Revisionist Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP, Lucknow … Respondent Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for the revisionist Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Addl. CSC for the State/respondent Dated: July 13, 2011 Coram Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Revisionist is engaged in courier business. In course of such business, revisionist carry materials, entrusted with it by its clients. One of its clients, namely, Titan Watches Limited, entrusted with the revisionist, watches for being delivered at Dehradun. The goods were brought to Dehradun station by an employee of the revisionist in a passenger train. Those were taken out from the railway station and loaded on a Tempo. The employee of the revisionist then went to the office of sales tax authorities for the purpose of obtaining proper endorsement on Form 31 pertaining to those goods. While the employee of revisionist was engaged in the process of obtaining such endorsement, the goods in question, which were then loaded on a Tempo and lying outside Dehradun Railway Station, were seized. Revisionist applied for withdrawal of seizure of the said goods and for handing over the goods to it. An objection was taken that since the goods were not owned by the revisionist, the owner thereof, should take steps, as were taken by the revisionist. 2. The owner of the goods then approached the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, who, in turn, directed the authorities concerned to decide the request made by the revisionist. Subsequent thereto, request of the revisionist was decided, when it was not disputed that the revisionist was in possession of Form 31, at or immediately before the goods were seized, and that the 2 revisionist was engaged in obtaining endorsement thereon from the appropriate authority of the Sales Tax Department, when the goods were seized, however, the request of the revisionist was turned down only on the ground that in fact when the goods were seized, Form 31 was not available with the goods. In other words, it was insinuated that in the event, endorsement on Form 31 is required to be taken, the goods must also accompany Form 31, at the office where endorsement thereon is obtainable. This way of thinking by the authorities concerned is palpably absurd. It is unimaginable that a lorry load of goods, covered by one single Form 31, will be carried to the fourth floor of the office of appropriate authority of the sales tax department for the purpose of obtaining endorsement on Form 31 and if the goods are not taken to the said office, but are kept on the road adjacent to the said office, the goods can be seized, for the goods are not accompanying Form 31. The Tribunal, being approached by the revisionist, has given the selfsame reason for not acceding to the request of the revisionist. Having had concluded that the reasons for rejecting the request of the revisionist is thoroughly and absolutely absurd, we set aside all the orders passed by the sales tax authorities, including the order passed directing seizure of the goods in question. In the event, revisionist has deposited any money, for the purpose of releasing the goods in question, the same shall be refunded to the revisionist forthwith, with such statutory interest, as prescribed in law. Revision is allowed accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 13.07.2011 Rdang