http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: LORD KRISHNA SUGAR MILLS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SAHARANPUR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/12/1965

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) HIDAYATULLAH, M. RAMASWAMI, V. SATYANARAYANARAJU, P.

CITATION:  1966 AIR 1519            1966 SCR  (2) 959

ACT: Saharanpur  Municipality  Rules for Tolls,  1949,  r.  8(a)- Lorries unloading goods in railway station within  municipal limits--Goods  intended for export by rail-Applicability  of rule.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant-mills,  was  situate  outside  the  municipal limits  of Saharampur and was exporting a large  quality  of cloth  to various places in India.  Its lorries loaded  with bales first entered the municipal limits at some place  near the  appellant’s  premise; and then  proceeded  towards  the railway station where they were unloaded without any sorting 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 outside the municipality.  But the barrier was not placed exactly  where the  municipal  limits and it was some distance ins  de  the municipal  limits,  which were beyond the  railway  station. Therefore..  after  the bales were unloaded at  the  railway station, they remained within the municipal limits till they were taken away by rail to destinations for which they  were booked. Under r. 8(a) of the Rules for Tolls as In 1949, which  were applicable  in the present case, if a person in charge of  a lorry  laden  with  taxable  goods  entering  the  municipal limits,  declared that they were meant for immediate  export from the municipal limits 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 pass 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  transit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

pass and escape the toll tax, was, that is lorries should go out of the export barrier even though the goods may still be within municipal 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 leas, possible delay.   Before  a person  could  claim the benefit of the rule, it  was  neces sary  to  satisfy the condtion that the  lorry  reached  the export 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 municipal area.  The half an hour’s period provided in the rule was for the purpose of checking at  the export  barrier that the lorry passed out of  the  municipal area  as  soon  as possible.  Therefore, where  was  not  in dispute  that  the  goods did not go out  of  the  municipal limits  even  after  passing the export  barrier,  and  were unloaded at the railway station which was 960 within the municipal limits, they would not be entitled to a transit pass. [964 E-F, H; 965 A-B] 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  necessarily at the 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  export barrier, the goods must go out of the municipal limits after passing the export barrier. if they are to be entitled to  a transit 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 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 Hidayatullah, 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-enter  without passing through it as an  import  barrier, they should merit a release form tolls. [967 F-H] 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  as  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 time.  The intention of the rule is to free from tolls goods in transit, on proof that they have been  exported from the municipal limits.  The rule must  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

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" must be,  in  the circumstances, understood as ’allowing a reasonable time for export. [968 A-C; 969 A-B] Central  India  Spinning and Weaving and  Manufacturing  Co. Ltd., The Empress Mills, Nagpur v. The Municipal  Committee, Wardha, [1958] S.C.R. 1102, followed.

JUDGMENT: 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 1957. G.   S. Pathak, B. Datta and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.  961 M.   C.  Setalvad, D. K. Agarwal, M. L. Gupta and  R.  Gana- pathy lyer. for the respondent. The Judgment of GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., WANCHOO, RAMASWAMI and RAJU, JJ. was delivered by WANCHOO, J., HIDYATULLAH, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion. Wanchoo,  J.  The only question raised in this appeal  on  a certificate  granted  by  the Allahabad High  Court  is  the interpretation 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 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 outside the limits of the Saharanpur municipality.  A large quantity  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 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. 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  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 moharrir stationed at the barrier". Rule  8 (a) with which we are particularly  concerned  reads thus’:               "If  the person in-charge of any  motor  lorry

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

             laden  with taxable goods declares in  writing               to the moharrir               962               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 in-charge of  the               motor  lorry,  who  shall  present  the   same               together  with  the motor lorry  carrying  the               goods  covered thereby to the 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 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 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 goods 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 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 railway 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 municipal 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 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 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  963 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 on which r.  8  (a) was assailed, but we are not concerned in the present appeal with those grounds. The learned Single Judge rejected all the contentions of the appellant.  He also rejected the interpretation placed on r.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

8  (a) on behalf of the appellant.  He held that what  r.  8 (a)  contemplated  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. 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 dismissed.    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. 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 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 entitled  to transit  passes if they go out of the municipal  barrier  at the  other end and even though thereafter they  might  still remain  within  the municipal limits.  In  other  words  the appellant’s contention is that all that r. 8 (a) requires in order  to entitle it to a transit pass and 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 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 meant for immediate export from the municipal limits without 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  arrive  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 municipal limits which will take a  few minutes more.  But it does not follow from  the  fact that the goods have arrived it 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  export  and are unloaded within municipal  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 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  limits  for  its  placing  depends  upon convenience,  the reasonable interpretation of the  rule  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

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 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 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 muni- 965 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  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 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 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 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  from  the  railway  yard to  the  town  must  pass  a municipal gate which serves as the toll barrier for persons, vehicles  and  goods entering the municipal  area  from  the station  side.  Anyone entering the railway yard  must  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 barrier is not placed at  the boundary  of the Municipality but somewhat within it and  it separates  the yard 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

Municipality  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 side  Saharanpur  Municipality.  It is not  denied  that  if these  goods  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 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               carrying  the  goods covered  thereby  to  the               moharrir at the barrier 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." 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 immediately  but  remain  within  those  limits  even  after passing  the  export barrier.  This is because the  yard  is within the municipal limits and the goods have to be                             967 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 Municipality  from  withholding  the refund.  The petition 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Srivastava  J. on September 10, 1960.  This appeal is  filed by the Mills on a certificate granted by the High Court. 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 rule 8(a).  The question  is:  what does rule 8(a) require a person to do 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 the 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 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 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 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 p.   C.1./66-15 968 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 satisfies itself that the goods have passed out of the municipal area and are not likely  to reenter 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.   See   Maxwell   on   the Interpretation of Statutes (Eleventh Edition) p. 341,  where the following passage occurs               "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.......... The Mills cannot take the goods out of the municipal area on their  own when they have passed through an  export  barrier

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

into  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 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  prove,,ion   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  ‘expore, 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. [1958] S.C.R. 1102.                             969 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. 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. 970