# LORD KRISHNA SUGAR MILLS v. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SAHARANPUR

- **Citation:** [1966] 2 S.C.R. 959
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-12-08
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 753 of 1963
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/lord-krishna-sugar-mills-v-municipal-committee-saharanpur-3770
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

K.
N.
WANCHOO,
M.
HIDAYATULLAH, V.
RAMASWAMI
AND
P.
SATYANARAYANA
RAJU, JJ.]
Saharanpur Municipality Rules for Toils, 1949, r. 8(a)-Lorries un.
loading goods in railway s ation within municipal limits-Goods intended
for export by rail-Applicability of rule.
The appellant-mills, was situate
outside
the
municipal
limits
of
Sahar;npur and was expo.-ting a large quan:ity of cloth to various places
in Ind.a.
Its lorr.es loaded with balei fi st entered the mun.cipal limits
at some place near the appellant's prem.se; and then proceeded towards
the railway station where they were unloaded
without
any ·soiting or
change of bulk.
Before reaching the station the lorries had to pass out
of the municipal barrier near the station, which was meant to serve as an
import barrier for goods coming into the municipality from the railway
station and as an export barrier for goods going outJlde the municipality.
But the barrier was not placed exactly whe e the municipal lim.tJ end; it
was some distance ins de the municipal limits, which were beyond
the
railway s~ation. Therefore,. after the bale; were unloaded at the railway
station, they remained within the municipal limits
till they were taken
away by rail to destination; for which they we:e booked.
Under r. 8(a) of the Rules for Tolli, as in 1949, which were applicable in the present ca1e, if a person in charge of a lorry laden with taxable pods entering the municipal limits, declared that they were meant
for immediate export from the municipal Lm!ts without sorting or change
of bulk, he was entitled to a transit pass which had to be presented within
half an hour at the export barrier and no toll tax would have to be paid.
The appellant claimed that it was entitled to get the transit pa;s under
the rule, but the respondent did not agree.
The
appellant,
therefore,
paid the toll tax under protest and filed a writ petition in the High Court,
but it was dismissed.
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that all that the rule
required in order to entitle it to a tran>it
pass and escape the toll tax,
was, that its lorriei should go out of the export barrier even though the
goods may still be within mun'cipal limits.
HELD (Per Chief Justice, Wanchoo., Ramaswami and Satyanarayana
· Raju, JJ) : The intention of the rule was that lorries, after entering the
municipal limits, were to pass out of the
same with the
least possible
delay.
Before a person could claim the benefit of the rule, it was necessary to satisfy the cond't'on that the lorry reached the expo :t
barrier
within the time limited by the rule and with the goods in the same condition in which they were when the lorry entered the
mun'cipal area.
The half an hour's period provided in the rule Wai for the
purpose of
checking at the export barrier that the lorry oa;sed out of the mun'cipal
area as soon as possib1e.
Therefore, where i: was not in dispute that
the gooch did not go out of the municipal 1 mits e·1en after pa·1Sing the
export barrier,
and were unloaded at the ra'lway station which
was
960
'SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
within the municipal limits, they would not be entitled to a transit pass.
A
[964 E-F, H; 965 A-BJ
The crucial words in the rule are "meant for immediate export from
such limits without sorting and change of bulk." The rule contemplates
that the goods must leave the municipal limits as soon as possible without
sorting or change of bulk, that is, in the same vehicle and their passing
through the export barrier is taken to show that they are going out of
the municipal limits.
However, as a barrier is not neces>arily at
the B
end of the municipal limits, for its placing depends upon convenience, the
reasonable interpretation of the rule is that where the municipal limits
extend for some distance beyond the expoot barrier, the ·goods ·must go
out of the municipal limits after passing the export barrier, if they are
to be entitled to a tr~nsit pass.
But it does not follow from the
fact
that the goods have ar

## Text

--
A
•.
B
c
D
,.
E
' . ,•
F
~
'
G
H
LORD KRISHNA SUGAR MILLS
v.
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SAHARANPUR
December 8, 1965
[P.
B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.,
K.
N.
WANCHOO,
M.
HIDAYATULLAH, V.
RAMASWAMI
AND
P.
SATYANARAYANA
RAJU, JJ.]
Saharanpur Municipality Rules for Toils, 1949, r. 8(a)-Lorries un.
loading goods in railway s ation within municipal limits-Goods intended
for export by rail-Applicability of rule.
The appellant-mills, was situate
outside
the
municipal
limits
of
Sahar;npur and was expo.-ting a large quan:ity of cloth to various places
in Ind.a.
Its lorr.es loaded with balei fi st entered the mun.cipal limits
at some place near the appellant's prem.se; and then proceeded towards
the railway station where they were unloaded
without
any ·soiting or
change of bulk.
Before reaching the station the lorries had to pass out
of the municipal barrier near the station, which was meant to serve as an
import barrier for goods coming into the municipality from the railway
station and as an export barrier for goods going outJlde the municipality.
But the barrier was not placed exactly whe e the municipal lim.tJ end; it
was some distance ins de the municipal limits, which were beyond
the
railway s~ation. Therefore,. after the bale; were unloaded at the railway
station, they remained within the municipal limits
till they were taken
away by rail to destination; for which they we:e booked.
Under r. 8(a) of the Rules for Tolli, as in 1949, which were applicable in the present ca1e, if a person in charge of a lorry laden with taxable pods entering the municipal limits, declared that they were meant
for immediate export from the municipal Lm!ts without sorting or change
of bulk, he was entitled to a transit pass which had to be presented within
half an hour at the export barrier and no toll tax would have to be paid.
The appellant claimed that it was entitled to get the transit pa;s under
the rule, but the respondent did not agree.
The
appellant,
therefore,
paid the toll tax under protest and filed a writ petition in the High Court,
but it was dismissed.
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that all that the rule
required in order to entitle it to a tran>it
pass and escape the toll tax,
was, that its lorriei should go out of the export barrier even though the
goods may still be within mun'cipal limits.
HELD (Per Chief Justice, Wanchoo., Ramaswami and Satyanarayana
· Raju, JJ) : The intention of the rule was that lorries, after entering the
municipal limits, were to pass out of the
same with the
least possible
delay.
Before a person could claim the benefit of the rule, it was necessary to satisfy the cond't'on that the lorry reached the expo :t
barrier
within the time limited by the rule and with the goods in the same condition in which they were when the lorry entered the
mun'cipal area.
The half an hour's period provided in the rule Wai for the
purpose of
checking at the export barrier that the lorry oa;sed out of the mun'cipal
area as soon as possib1e.
Therefore, where i: was not in dispute that
the gooch did not go out of the municipal 1 mits e·1en after pa·1Sing the
export barrier,
and were unloaded at the ra'lway station which
was
960
'SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
within the municipal limits, they would not be entitled to a transit pass.
A
[964 E-F, H; 965 A-BJ
The crucial words in the rule are "meant for immediate export from
such limits without sorting and change of bulk." The rule contemplates
that the goods must leave the municipal limits as soon as possible without
sorting or change of bulk, that is, in the same vehicle and their passing
through the export barrier is taken to show that they are going out of
the municipal limits.
However, as a barrier is not neces>arily at
the B
end of the municipal limits, for its placing depends upon convenience, the
reasonable interpretation of the rule is that where the municipal limits
extend for some distance beyond the expoot barrier, the ·goods ·must go
out of the municipal limits after passing the export barrier, if they are
to be entitled to a tr~nsit pass.
But it does not follow from the
fact
that the goods have arrived at the export barrier
within half an hour
from the time of the .issue of a transit pass and have passed the export
barrier, that the goods are "meant for immediate export from municipal
C
limits" if the goods are not sent out of the municipal limits after crossing
the export barrier and the unloaded within the municipal limits. [963
G-H; 964 A, B, D-E]
Per Hidayatuilah, J. (dissenting) : There was a declaration by the
appellant that the goods imported into the municipal limits were meant
for immediate export from such limits without
sorting and change of
bulk and the goods did pass the export barrier without any sorting or
change of bulk. They were unloaded on the railway premises and the
trucks returned empty. The appellant had
thus complied with all the
conditions of the rule.
No doubt, some time has
to pass before the
goods are booked and loaded on trains and during that time the goods
did lie within the municipal limits; but as the goods have passed the export barrier and could not re"ilnter without passing through it as an import
barrier, they should merit a release fom tolls. [967 F-H]
D
E
The municipality imposes its taxes only when there is entry into the
town from the railway yard. The municipality by its own arrangement,
regards the station yard aJ being outside its export barrier. If the same
goods are brought in again they will bear tax at the barrier as an import
barrier and no plea will be heard that the goods had paid toll at the
other end and that they were within the municipal
limits all the ti!ll.e.
The intention of the rμle is to free from tolls goods in transit, on proof
that they have been exported from the municipal limits. The rule must
F
be applied in a fair and equitable manner and one of the cardinal principles of law is that the law does not expect, nor does it compel, a man to
do that which he cannot possibly
perform. The word "immediately"
mus! be, in the circumstances, understood as allowing a reasonable time
for export. [968 A-C; 969 A-BJ
Central India Spinning and Weaving
and
Manufacturing Co. Ltd.,
The Empr.ess Mills, Nagpur v. The Municipal Committee, Wardha, [1958]
G
S.C.R. 1102, followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 753 of
1963.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 10,
1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 105 of H
1957.
G, S, Pathak, B. Datta and Naunit Lal, for the appellant
'
'
,
'
•
KRISHNA MILLS v. MUNIC. COMMITTEE (Wanchoo, /.}
961
Ji.
M. C. Setalvad, D. K. Agarwal, M. L. Gupta and R. Ganapathy lyer. for the respondent.
The Judgment of GAJENDRAGADKAR,
CJ., WANCHOO,
RAMASWAMI and RAJU, JJ. was delivered by
WANCHOO, J.,
HIDAYATULLAH, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
B
Wanchoo, J.
The only question raised in this appeal on a
certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court is the interpre·
tation of r. 8 (a) of the Rules in force from May 1, 1949, in the
municipal area of Saharanpur with respect to tolls payable on
entry of goods within the limits of the Saharanpur municipality.
We may add that the rules in question were changed from
C September 7, 1955; but we are not concerned with those rules as
the present dispute refers to a period before September 7, 1955.
The facts which are relevant in this connection lie in a narrow
compass.
The appellant, Lord Krishna Sugar Mills, carries on
the business of manufacturing sugar and cloth. It is situate 04tside the limits of the Saharanpur municipality. A large quantity
D
of cloth is exported by the appellant to various places in India.
Motor lorries loaded with bales of packed cloth leave the
appellant's premises and carry these bales to the railway station
where the bales are unloaded and booked by rail to various destinations without any sorting or change of bulk.
The railway
station of Saharanpur is situate within the municipal limits and
S
therefore the lorries have to enter the municipal limits when they
carry bales to the railway station.
Further after the bales are
unloaded at the railway station they remain within the municipal
limits till they are taken away by rail to destinations for which
they are booked.
r
Rule 2 of the Rules on Tolls as in 1949 with which we are
concerned provided that "no person shall enter the toll limits of
the Saharanpur Municipalities .... with any head-load, bahangi
load, laden vehicle or any laden pack animal, on or in respect of
which terminal toll is leviable, until the toll due has been paid
to such persons and at such places as the Municipal Board may
G from time to time appoint". Rule 3 provided that "when a laden
man, laden vehicle or laden pack animal subject to terminal toll
arrives at one of the barriers fixed by the Board, the terminal toll
due shall be paid at once by the person in-charge of the head-load
bahangi load, laden vehicle or laden pack animal to the m~h1rri;
stationed at the barrier". Rule 8 (a) with which we are particuH
Jarly concerned reads thus :
·
. "If the person in-charge of any motor lorry laden
with taxable goods declares in writing to the moharrir
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 s.c.R.
at the import barrier that the goods he is importing into
A
the limits of the Municipality are meant for immediate
export from such limits without sorting and change of
bulk, the moharrir shall issue a transit pass in Form 61
of the M.A.C. to such person in-charge of the motor
lorry, who shall present the same together with the
motor lorry carrying the goods covered thereby to the
B
moharrir at the barrier of export within half an hour
from the time of issue of the transit pass."
Dispute arose between the appellant and the municipality on
the question whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of c
r. 8 (a) which would exempt it from the payment of toll tax when
it sent its goods to the railway station at Saharanpur for booking
to various destinations by rail. It appears that there is a municipal barrier near the railway station and the appellant's lorries
carrying goods first entered municipal limits at some place near
the appellant's premises and then proceeded towards the railway D
station. Before reaching the station, the lorries had to pass out
of the barrier near the station. This barrier apparently was meant
to serve two purposes. It was an import barrier for
goe>1s
coming into the municipality from the railway station and from
that side. It was also an export barrier for goods going outside
the municipality. But the barrier was not placed exactly where E
the municipal limits . ended; it was at some distance inside the
municipal limits so that the lorries of the appellant going out of
the barrier and proceeding to the ~ailway station were still within
the municipal limits and the goods when unloaded at the
railway station for booking were still within the municipal limits,
It is at some distance beyond the railway station that the municiF
pal limits come to an end. It was not in dispute that the lorries
of the appellant carrying the goods to the railway station never
went out of the municipal limits and the goods were unloaded at
.the railway station and remained within the municipal limits. The
municipality claims that it was entitled to charge the toll tax as
- the goods never left the municipal limits and that r. 8 (a) only
G
applied to those cases where the goods actually left the municipal
limits within half an hour of entry. The appellant on the other
hand contended on an interpretation of r. 8 (a) that it was entitled
to the transit pass as the railway station was beyond the municipal
barrier on that side and the lorries passed that barrier and in the H
circumstances if the lorries passed that barrier within half an
hour of their entry into the municipal limits, r. 8 (a) was complied with and the appellant was entitled to a transit pass which
KRISHNA MILLS v. MUNIC. COMMITTEE (Wanchoo, I.)
963
A would then exempt it from toll tax.
The Municipal Board did
not accept this interpretation of r. 8 (a).
The appellant therefore had to pay the toll tax and did so under protest. It however filed a writ petition in the High Court inter alia contending
that its interpretation of r. 8 (a) was correct and it was entitled
to get transit passes for its lorries. There were other grounds also
B on which r. 8 (a) was assailed, but we are not concerned in the
present al?peal with those grounds.
The learned Single Judge rejected all the contentions of the
appellant. He also rejected the interpretation placed on r. 8 (a)
on behalf of the appellant. He held that what r. 8 (a) contemC plated was that the goods should leave the municipality; as the
appellant's lorries did not leave the municipal limits but were
unloaded at the railway station which was admittedly within the
municipal limits the appellant was not entitled to transit passes
for its lorries.
D
The appellant then went in appeal to a Division Bench, and
the Division Bench upheld the interpretation put on r. 8 (a) by
the learned- Single Judge.
In consequence the appeal was dis~
missed.
Thereupon the appellant applied for a certificate which
was granted by the High Court; and that is how the matter has
,
come up before us.
)l
..
E
The whole dispute in the present case has arisen on account
of the fact that the municipal barrier on the side of the railway
station is not near the municipal limits; it has been placed at
some distance within the municipal limits.
Beyond the barrier
is the railway station which is within municipal limits and beyond
F
that also for some distance the municipal limits continue.
The
appellant therefore contends that all that r. 8 (a) requires is that
after its lorries had entered the municipal limits, they would be
entitied to transit passes if they go out of the municipal barrier
at the other end and even though thereafter they might still
G
remain within the municipal limits. In other words the appellant's
oontention is that all that r. 8 (a) requires in order to entitle it to
a transit pass ane thus escape the toll tax is that its lorries should
go out of the municipal barrier at the other end of the city even
though they may still be within municipal limits.
We are of opinion that this is neither the intention nor the
meaning of r. 8 (a). The crucial words in the rule are "meant
H
for immediate export from such limits without sorting and change
of bulk". A person would thus be entitled to a transit pass under
r. 8 (a) if the goods he is bringing into the municipal limits are
964
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
meant for immediate export from the municipal limits without
A
sorting or change of bulk.
The latter part of r. 8 (a) is meant to
lay down a procedure to check this. Reading the two parts
together, immediate export means that within half an hour from
the time of issue of transit pass the goods must arrivei at the
barrier of export which may be on the other side of the city and
after checking by the moharrir at the barrier pass out of the
B
municipal limits which will take a few minutes more. But it does
not follow from the fact that the goods have arrived ~< the barrier
of export within half an hour from the time ·of issue of transit
pass and have passed the export barrier that the goods are "meant
for immediate export from municipal limits" if the goods are not
sent out of the municipal limits after crossing the barrier of
C
export and are unloaded within niunicipal limits. The transit pass
is only to be granted if the goods are "meant for immediate export
from such limits".
That means that the goods must go out of
municipal limits as soon as possible, and half an hour's period
provided for their arrival at the export barrier after the issue of D
transit passes is meant merely to check this fact. The rule clearly
contemplates that the goods must leave the municipal limits as
soon as possible without sorting or change of bulk, i.e., in the
same vehicle and their passing through the export barrier is taken
to show that they are going out of the municipal limits. However, as a barrier is not necessarily at the end of the municipal
E
limits for its placing depends upon convenience, the reasonable
interpretation of the rule is that where the municipal limits extend
for some distance beyond the export barrier the goods must go
out of the municipal limits after passing the export barrier if they
are to be entitled to transit pass. But where, as in the present
case, it is not in dispute that the goods do not go out of the F
municipal limits even after passing the export barrier and are
unloaded at the railway station which is within municipal limits
they would not be entitled to a transit pass. 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
G
that on a declaration that the goods are mean~ "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 howH
ever the goods are not taken out immediately from municipal
limits and may lie at the railway station which is within the muni-
•
•
KRISHNA MILLS v. MUNIC. COMMITTEE (Hidayatullah, J.)
965
A cipal 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
B the lorry reached the export barrier within the time limited by
the rule. The intention of the rule obviously is that a lorry which
enters 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 hour's period provided in the
C
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
D "for the 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
S
method for checking that this has happened.
The appeal therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Hidayatullah, J. · The railway station at Saharanpur is
admittedly situated within the municipal limits.
Anyone going
r from the railway yard to the town must pass a municipal gate
which serve~ as the toll barrier for persons, vehicles and goods
entering the municipal area from the station side.
Anyone
entering the railway yard inust also pass the same gate which
serves as an export barrier and a checking post for persons,
vehicles and goods passing out of the municipal area. This toll
G barrier is not placed at the boundary of the Municipality but somewhat within it and it separates the yar~ from the municipality
proper. There is no barrier beyond the railway territory.
The appellant, Lord Krishna Sugar Mills, manufactures sugar
and cloth. The mills are situated outside Saharanpur MunicipaB
lity but their goods, which are carried in trucks, have to pass the
export barrier to enter the station yard from where they are
booked without any sorting or change of bulk to destinations out-
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1966) 2 S.C.R.
side Saharanpur Municipality. It is not denied that if these goods
A
are brought back they must pass the barrier again.
The Municipality levies tolls under its rules on goods entering the Municipality and no person with a head-load, bahangiload, laden vehicle or laden pack animal can enter the municipal
limit until toll is paid at one of the toll barriers fixed by the
B
Municipal Board. There is, however. a concession in respect of
goods carried on a motor lorry which are in transit across the
municipal territory.
This concession is given by rule 8 (a) and
the concession is the subject of the dispute between the Mills and
the Municipality in this appeal. Rule 8 reads :
"8. (a) If. the person incharge of any motor lorry
laden with taxable goods declares in writing to the
moharrir at the import barrier that the goods he is importing into the limits of the Municipality are meant for
immediate export from such limits without sorting and
change of bulk, the moharrir shall issue a transit pass in
Form 61 of the M.A.C. to such person incharge of the
motor lorry, who shall present the same together with
the motor lorry carryin~ the goods covered thereby to
the moharrir at the bamer of export within half an hour
from the time of issue of the transit pass.
(b) The moharrir shall retain the transit pass and
after he has verified the lorry and the goods therein· with
the entries in the transit pass allow such lorry with the
goods to pass out of the barrier and shall sign a certificate to this effect on the transit pass.
(c) In case of pass being presented after the expiry
of the time allowed for transit or there being a discrepancy in the description of the lorry presented or the
goods carried thereby, the moharrir shall make a note
to this effect on the transit pass and shall submit the
same to the Tax Inspector or Superintendent. The fee
for transit pass shall be Rs. 2 per lorry."
c
D
E
F
G
The Municipal Committee ,insists on keeping the amount of
toll paid by the Mills and refuses the pass even though the goods
are carried to the railway yard and are taken out of the export
barrier at the railway station, on the ground that the goods do
not pass out of the municipal limits immediate'v but remain within
H
those limits even after passing the export barrier. This is because
the yard is within the municipal limits and the goods have to be
' •
' >
KRISHNA MILLS V. MUNIC. COMMITTEE (Hidayatullah, J.)
967
A booked and before booking lie in the yard for some time, and,
even after booking are not carried away immediately.
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 Mun_icipality from withholding the refund. The petiB tion 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.
c
My learned brother Wanchoo has affirmed the decj,sions 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 rule 8(a).
The question is: what does rule S(a)
D require a person to do and what can the Mills do in the present
circumstances ? Rule S(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
E
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 the transit pass to the moharrir at the barrier
of export within half an hour from the time of issue of the transit
F pass.
This is also complied with by the person incharge of the
trucks belonging to the Mills.
The goods then pass the cixport
barrier and without sorting and change of bulk. The goods are
next unloaded on the railway premises and the trucks return
empty. No doubt some time passes before the goods are booked
and some more time passes before they are loaded on trains and
G they do lie within the municipal limits, but as the 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
H
itself so as to segregate the railway yard from the town proper. It
is to be remembered that persons 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
L8Sup. C.T./66-15
.
968
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
[I 966] 2 S.C.R.
municipal limits.
This is because the railway yard is not conA
sidered 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 satisfies itself that the goods have passed out of the municipal
B
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 possibl}' perform.
TI1e goods may not be for "immediate" export but they are meant
for export and are in fact exported.
The word "inlmediately"
C
must be, in the circumstances, understood as allowing a reasonable time for export. See Maxwell on the Interpretation of
Statutes (Eleventh Edition) p. 341, where the following passage
-0ccurs :-
"When a statute requires that something shall be
done "forthwith'', or "immediately" or even "instantly,"
it would probably be understood as allowing a reasonable time for doing it. ...... ".
D
The Mills cannot take the goods out of the municipal area on
. their own when they have passed through an export barrier into
E
the railway yard.
Having done everything that can possibly be
done the law does not compel them to do more. I may mention
here that in the Central India Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., The Empress Mills, Nagpur v. The Municipal
Committee, Wardha( 1 ), this Court allewed refund in respect of F
~oods 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' meamt 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 taldng out of goods
which had become part and parcel of the mas~ 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
G
are· on trains in municipal area were held neither to be imported
H
11or exported. The present ca~ is even stronger.
[1,58] S.C.R. 1102.
,,
>
•
KRISHNA MILLS v. MUN!C. COMMITTEE (Hidayatulfah, J.)
969
A
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
B
all the time. The import barrier will be treated a toll barrier even
for these goods. ·
c
In this view of the matter I am of opinion that the appeal must
be allowed with costs and I would order accordingly.
ORDER
In accordance with the opinion of the majority the appeal is
dismissed with costs.