Page 68 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

170 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
the said provision also does not aid or assist the revenue. Section 51 of the 1930
Act reads : -
“51. Duration of transit. - (1) Goods are deemed to be in course of trans-
it from the time when they are delivered to a carrier or other bailee for the
purpose of transmission to the buyer, until the buyer or his agent in that
behalf takes delivery of them from such carrier or other bailee.
(2) If the buyer or his agent in that behalf obtains delivery of the goods be-
fore their arrival at the appointed destination, the transit is at an end.
(3) If, after the arrival of the goods at the appointed destination, the carri-
er or other bailee acknowledges to the buyer or his agent that he holds the
goods on his behalf and continues in possession of them as bailee for the
buyer or his agent, the transit is at an end and it is immaterial that a further
destination for the goods may have been indicated by the buyer.
(4) If the goods are rejected by the buyer and the carrier or other bailee
continues in possession of them, the transit is not deemed to be at an end,
even if the seller has refused to receive them back.
(5) When goods are delivered to a ship chartered by the buyer, it is a
question depending on the circumstances of the particular case, whether
they are in the possession of the master as a carrier or as agent of the buyer.
(6) Where the carrier or other bailee wrongfully refuses to deliver the
goods to the buyer or his agent in that behalf, the transit is deemed to be at
an end.
(7) Where part delivery of the goods has been made to the buyer or his
agent in that behalf, the remainder of the goods may be stopped in transit,
unless such part delivery has been given in such circumstances as to show
an agreement to give up possession of the whole of the goods
14. Sub-clause (1) of the said provision specifies when the goods shall
be deemed to be in course of transit and sub-clause (3) thereof lays down the
conditions for termination of transit. That condition is an acknowledgment to the
buyer or his agent by the carrier that he holds the goods on his behalf. There is
no material to suggest such an acknowledgment was made by the independent
transporter in these appeals. In such circumstances we do not think the decision
of the High Court requires any interference.
15. In the case of Arjan Dass Gupta (supra) principle akin to constructive
delivery was expounded and we have quoted the relevant passage from that de-
cision earlier in this judgment. In our opinion, however, such construction would
not be proper to interpret the provisions of Section 3 of the 1956 Act. A legal fic-
tion is created in first explanation to that Section. That fiction is that the move-
ment of goods, from one State to another shall terminate, where the goods have
been delivered to a carrier for transmission, at the time of when delivery is taken
from such carrier. There is no concept of constructive delivery either express or
implied in the said provision. On a plain reading of the statute, the movement of
the goods, for the purposes of clause (b) of Section 3 of the 1956 Act would ter-
minate only when delivery is taken, having regard to first explanation to that
Section. There is no scope of incorporating any further word to qualify the nature
and scope of the expression “delivery” within the said section. The legislature
has eschewed from giving the said word an expansive meaning. The High Court
under the judgment which is assailed in Civil Appeal No. 2217 of 2011 rightly
held that there is no place for any intendment in taxing statutes. We are of the
view that the interpretation of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court given
in the case of Arjan Dass Gupta does not lays down correct position of law. In the
GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  68