Case: Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Vs. Municipal Committee, Saharanpur

13. The Mills feeling aggrieved filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Allahabad for a writ to restrain the Municipality from withholding the refund. The pitetion was dismissed by Mr. Justice Mehrotra on February 12, 1957 and a special appeal under the Letters Patent was also dismissed by Mootham, C. J. and A. P. Srivastava, J. on September 10, 1960. This appeal is filed by the Mills on a certificate granted by the High Court. 14. My learned brother Wanchoo has affirmed the decisions in the High Court. In my opinion, and I say it respectfully, the contention of the Mills is well-founded. The intention of the rule undoubtedly is to free goods in transit from tolls on proof that they have been exported from the municipal limits as required by R. 8 (a), the question is: what does R. 8(a) require a person to and what can the Mills do in the Present circumstances? Rule 8 (a) analysed shows that the person incharge of a truck laden with taxable goods has to declare in writing to the moharrir at the import barrier that the goods which are being imported are meant for immediate export from such limits without sorting and change of bulk. This declaration is made by the persons incharge of the trucks belonging to the Mills. The moharrir to whom such declaration is made, then issues a transit pass in Form 61 of the M. A. C. and the person to whom it is issued has to present it together with the truck carrying the goods covered by transit pass to the moharrir at the barrier of export within half an hour from the time of issue of the transit pass. This is also complied with by the person incharge of the trucks belonging to the Mills. The goods then pass the export barrier and without sorting and change of bulk. The goods are next unloaded on the railway premises and the tracts return empty. No doubt some time passes before the goods are booked and some more time passes before they are loaded on trains and they do lie within the municipal limits, but as goods which have passed the export barrier and which cannot enter the municipal limits again without passing through an import barrier, they should merit a release from tolls. This is the result of the fact that the Municipality has established its barrier convenient to itself so as to segregate the railway yard from the town proper. It is to be remembered that person coming to the railway station and passing through without entering the municipal barrier are not required to pay toll even though they technically enter the municipal limits. This is because the railway yard is not considered as the area where the Municipality chooses to impose its taxes. The Municipality imposes its taxes only when there is entry into the town from the railway yard. The same thing obtains when goods are exported through the export barrier and enter the railway yard. In so far as the Municipality is concerned it satisfied itself that the goods have passed out of the municipal area and are not likely to re-enter without paying toll. The rule must be applied in a fair and equitable manner and one of the cardinal principles of law is that law does not expect, nor does it compel, a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform. The goods may not be for "immediate" export but they are meant for export and are in fact exported. The word "immediately" must be, in the circumstances understood as allowing a reasonable time for export 15. See Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes (Eleventh Edition), p. 341, where the following passage occurs :-"When a statute requires that some thing shall be done "forthwith", or "immediately" or even "instantly", it would probably be understood as allowing a reasonable time for doing it ....". The Mills cannot take the goods out of the municipal area on their own when they have passed through an export barrier into the railway yard. Having done everything that can possibly be done the law does not compel them to do more. 16. I may mention here that in the Central India Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., The Empress Mills, Nagpur v. Municipal Committee, Wardha, AIR 1958 SC 841, this Court allowed refund in respect of goods entering a municipal barrier but passing out of the municipal limits in the same trucks, even though there was no provision for a declaration or a transit pass or an export barrier. It was pointed out what the words import and export meant in such a context. The word import, it was held, was not merely bringing into but something more, i.e., incorporating and mixing up of the goods imported with the mass of the property and export, it was also held, had reference to taking out of goods which had become part and parcel of the mass of the property in the local area. Goods in transit were, therefore, held to be neither imported nor exported. It was on this ground that goods which are on trains in municipal area were held neither to be imported nor exported. The present case is even stronger. 17. In my judgment, the Municipality by its own arrangement, regards the station yard as being outside its export barrier. If the same goods are brought in again the next day or the day after, they will bear the tax at the import barrier. No plea, I am sure, will be heard that these goods had paid the toll at the other end of Saharanpur Municipality and were within the municipal limits all the time. The import barrier will be treated a toll barrier even for these goods. 18. In this view of the matter I am of opinion that the appeal must be allowed with costs and I would order accordingly. Order: 19.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The drafting of R. 8(a) is not very happy and the difficulty has arisen because the export barrier in the present case is well within municipal limits. But it seems to us clear that what R. 8 (a) intends, when it says that on a declaration that the goods are meant "for immediate export from such limits without sorting and change of bulk", a transit pass would be granted is that the goods would be taken out of municipal limits as soon as possible after entry. What the latter part provides is the method of checking that the goods are taken out immediately from municipal limits. When, however, the goods are not taken out immediately from municipal limits and may lie at the railway station which is within the municipal limits for a length of time, the benefit of transit pass under R. 8 (a) cannot be allowed. We agree with the High Court that the intention of the rule is that motor lorries to which the rule applies after entering municipal limits are to pass out of the same with the least possible delay, and before a person can claim the benefit of the rule it is necessary to satisfy the condition that the lorry reached the export barrier within the time limited by the rule. The intention of the rule obviously is that lorry which enter the municipal limit at one end and gets a transit pass should go out of the municipal area as soon as possible with the goods in the same condition in which they were when the lorry entered the municipal area, and half an hours period provided in the latter part of the rule is merely for the purpose of checking at the export barrier that this is actually done. Where, as in the present case, lorries were never meant to proceed beyond the railway station, and the railway station was within the municipal area, there could be no question of grant of transit passes to such lorries. As we have said already the crucial words in R. 8 (a) are "for immediate export from such limits without sorting and change of bulk" and these mean that the goods must go out of the municipal limits as soon as possible on the lorry on which they have entered and unless that is done the lorry would not be entitled to a transit pass. The latter part of the rule is merely a method for checking that this has happened.