Dr. B.P.Saraf, J.— The facts given rise to this writ petition are very brief but questions of law that arise for consideration are important and interesting. We state the facts first. The petitioner, Kinkar Deb, is a small businessman who occasionally deals with lottery tickets. On 18-9-1986,he came from Calcutta to Agartala by Indian Airlines Flight. He brought with him lottery tickets numbering 50,000 the face value of which was Rs. 50,000/-. The moment he landed at Agartala and entered the airport lounge, the official of the Sales Tax Department of the Government of Tripura, intercepted him and cheeked his baggage and found the aforesaid lottery tickets in his brief case and bag. The petitioner told the tax officials that he was bound for silchar in the State of Assam but having failed to manage air ticket, he landed at agartala and decided to go to Silchar by roadways. He also stated that he had no intention to sell the lottery tickets in Tripura . The Superrintendent of Taxes, however did not accept his statement and sized the lottery tickets vide seizure list dated 18-9-186 . The seizure was made for the alleged contravention of the provisions of section 37(1) of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, hereinafter 'the Act'. The very next day on 19-9-86 the Superintendent of Taxes passed an order whereby the alleged offence of import of lottery tickets through Indian Airlines on 18-9-86 under section 37(1) of the Act committed by the petitioner was compounded by him. It was done in lieu of taking action under section 9 of the Act. The sale value of the lottery tickets was computed at Rs. 50,000/-; tax payble @ 20% was determined at Rs.10,000/-; composition money amounting to Rs. 20,000/- was added thereto and the petitioner was directed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 30,000/- immediately. It was done in lieu of taking action under section 9 of the Act. The sale value of the lottery tickets was computed at Rs. 50,000/-; tax payble @ 20% was determined at Rs.10,000/-; composition money amounting to Rs. 20,000/- was added thereto and the petitioner was directed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 30,000/- immediately. As this order is the subject matter of challenge and most of the contentions of the petitioner are based on the statements in this order, it is reproduced below; “19-9-86 ORDER During inquiry in the Agartala Airport on 18-9-86 it is found that Sri Kinker Deb, S/o Sri Sukumar Deb of Town Shibnagar College Road(Ext.) Agartala has imported lottery tickets though Indian Airlines on 18-9-86 in contravention of the provision of the TST Act 1976 and hence he has committed offence U/s 37(1) of the TST Act 1976 and accordingly the below noted taxable goods are seized U/s 37. 1. Lottery tickets 2(two) Brief cases . 2. Lottery tickets 1 (one) Bag. So Sri Deb is asked to show cause why action shall not be taken U/s 29 of the TST Act, 1976. Sri Deb states that he was bound for Silchar but failing to manage Air Ticket he landed at Agartala and decided to go Silchar by roadways. He adds that he has no intention to sell the lottery tickets in Tripura. But in my opinion that the above contention of the dealer is nothing a plea to avoid the tax and panelty after detection of unauthorised import of taxable goods. So, dealer’s contention cannot be accepted. Therefore, instead of taking action U/S 29 of the TST ACT, 1976 proceed to compound the offence U/S 37(1) as under: Sale value of the Lottery tickets - Rs. 50,000/- Tax Payable @20% - Rs. 10,000/- Add Composition money - Rs. 20,000/- Rs.30000/- Shri Deb is directed to deposit the amount immediately failing which action shall be taken as per Law. By another order passed on the very next day i.e. on 20.9.86, the date of payment eas extended to 22.9.86. The petitioner did not deposit the tax and composition money demanded by the superintendent of Taxes. 20,000/- Rs.30000/- Shri Deb is directed to deposit the amount immediately failing which action shall be taken as per Law. By another order passed on the very next day i.e. on 20.9.86, the date of payment eas extended to 22.9.86. The petitioner did not deposit the tax and composition money demanded by the superintendent of Taxes. On the other hand, he prefer a revision petition before the Commissioner on Taxes on the ground that the seizure of the lottery tickets by order 19.9.86 and the composition made by order dated 19.9.86 by the Superintendent on taxes, were illegal and without jurisdiction. It was contended, inter alia, that the composition was made by the Superintendent without the consent of the petitioner which was not in accordance with Law. It was further contended that even if it was found that an offence had been committed u/s 37(1) of the Act, the maximum amount that could have been payable by the way of composition money was Rs. 1,000/- and not Rs. 20,000/- as levied by the Superintendent of Taxes. A prayer was also made for release of the seized lottery tickets on the ground that they were perishable in nature as after expiry of the date of the draw, they would lose all their value. In that view of the matter the commissioner by interim order dated 22.9.86, directed released of seized lottery tickets on furnishing a cash deposit of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the same and got the lottery tickets released. Later, the Commissioner by order dated 20.11.86 rejected the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the revision petition. The Commissioner found that the petitioner opted for co position but having found the amount calculated by the superintendent of Taxes to be high declined to compound. The commissioner, however was of the opinion that in such a situation the Superintendent of Taxes was justified in passing the order on composition and enforcing payment the of it was held that the composition money had been calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that the petitioner was legally bound to comply waith the said composition order and to pay the tax and composition money amounting to Rs. 30,000/- in determined by the Superintendent of Taxes. 30,000/- in determined by the Superintendent of Taxes. He, therefore, directed that the cash security furnished by the petitioner in term of interim order dated 22.9.86 should be deemed to be composition money deposited by the petitioner for composition of the offence as per the order of the Superintendent of Taxes dated 19.9.86. The Commissioner also held that in view of the aforesaid order passed by him the offence committed by the petitioner was deemed to be compounded as per the provisions of section 32(2) of the Act. The revision petition was, therefore, dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing the present writ petition. Two important questions of Jaw arise in this case. The first question relates to the interpretation of section 32 of the Act which deals with the composition of offences. Few points arise for consideration in this regard. The first point is what is the nature, scope and ambit of the power or duty of the authorities while acting under this section - whether it simply enables the authorities to accept composition money from the person who had committed or is reasonably suspected to have committed an offence under the Act or it empowers the officer to levy composition money like penalty or other impositions. The next point is who has to invoke the provisions of this section - is it the tax payer who is alleged to have committed the offence or the officer who has so alleged : Who has to determine the composition money : Whether expressing desire to opt for composition is enough to vest the officer with the power to determine the maximum amount, which, accor­ding to him, might be payable as composition money and to enforce payment of the same ? Or, in the alternative, he can ignore the offer of composition unless the amount of composition money, offered and accepted is paid and proceed with action by way of penalty or prosecution as contemplated under the Act for the alleged offence and leave the person concerned to contest the same or to defend himself. These are some of the points that will have to be considered in this case. These are some of the points that will have to be considered in this case. The next question that conies up for consideration is the scope and ambit of section 37 of the Act which restricts a person from taking delivery or transporting from any railway station, airport, post office etc. any consign­ment of taxable goods exceeding such quantities except in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed. The main point for consideration in this regard is whether this requirement which applies to consignments of goods applies to personal baggage of a person also. For that purpose, it will be necessary to look at the scheme of section 37 and the relevant Rules, namely, Rules 45 to 48 which deal with the requirements that a person is required to fulfill before taking delivery of consignment from railway station, airport etc. in the instant case, the admitted position is that the lottery tickets in question were not booked as consignment with the Indian Airlines but were carried with the petitioner as his personal baggage for which no consignment note etc. is issued by the Indian Airlines. Incidental to this point will arise another point for consideration, namely, whether the authorities under the Act have got any power to stop a person at the airport, railway station, post office etc. and to check his baggage to verify whether he is carrying any taxable goods beyond the specified quantities with him. It will also have to be decided whether carrying taxable goods by any person from any other State to the State of Tripura as personal baggage is prohibited by any of the provisions of the Act and whether such carriage constitutes an offence punishable under sub-section (3) of section 37. These are shortly the questions that will require consideration in this case. Before we proceed to examine the same, it will be expedient to refer to the relevant provisions of law. We may first deal with the provisions relating to composition. Section 32 of the Act which provides for composition of offences reads as follows : “32. These are shortly the questions that will require consideration in this case. Before we proceed to examine the same, it will be expedient to refer to the relevant provisions of law. We may first deal with the provisions relating to composition. Section 32 of the Act which provides for composition of offences reads as follows : “32. Composition of offences : (1) Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the Commissioner may, cither before or after institution of criminal proceedings under this Act, accept from the person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence under this Act or the rules made thereunder, by way of composition or such offence - (a) Where the offence consists of the failure to pay, or the evasion of, any tax recoverable under this Act, in addition to the tax including interest it any or penalty or both so recoverable, a sum of money not exceeding one thousand rupees or double the amount of the tax recoverable, whichever is greater, and (b) in any other case a sum of money not exceeding one thousand rupees in addition to tax recoverable. (2) On payment of such sum as may be determined by the Com­missioner under sub-section (I), no further proceedings shall be taken against the person concerned in respect of the same offence.” Rule 39 of the Rules provides that when an order is recorded under section 32 accepting any sum, by way of composition of the offence from any dealer, the order shall specify ;- "(a) time within which the money is to be paid into a Government Treasury; (b) date by which the proof of such payment is to be produced; and © authority before whom such proof is to be produced." From a bare reading of section 32 it is clear that this section is enabling section by virtue of which the Commissioner, or any other officer delegated with the power, may accept certain sum specified therein by way of composition money. A he composition money is in addition to tax including interest, it any or penalty or both, which might be recoverable. The maximum amount of composition money has been fixed at Rs.l000/- or double the amount of the tax recoverable, whichever is greater, in a case where the offence consists of failure to pay or evasion of any tax recoverable under the Act. The maximum amount of composition money has been fixed at Rs.l000/- or double the amount of the tax recoverable, whichever is greater, in a case where the offence consists of failure to pay or evasion of any tax recoverable under the Act. In any other case, the maximum amount of composition money has been fixed at Rs.l000/-. It is also in addition to tax recoverable. From a careful reading of section 32, more Particularly sub-section (2) thereof, it is abundantly clear that composition is not complete either with the offer made by a dealer o compound or acceptance there of by the authority concerned. All these can only be termed as steps towards composition of an offence. The offer to pay a certain amount by way of composition money has to come from the person who has committed or is suspected to have committed an offence. He has to specify the amount that he is willing to pay by way of composition money. It is at that stage that the authority comes into the picture because it has to decide whether to accept the offer or not to accept. If it decides not to accept the offer of the person concerned on the ground that the amount offer is low, it may itself point out the amount that it is willing or prepared to accept and to that extent there is scope for negotiation between the authority and the person charged with the offence. If such negotiation fails, there will be no composition. If the person concerns agrees to pay the enhanced amount suggested by the authority, he shall revise his offer agreeing to pay such enhanced amount. Thereupon , it shall be for the authority to accept it. If the authority concerned accepts the offer at the original amount enhance amount, as suggested by him, he is required to record an order as contemplated by Rule 39 of the Rules accepting the same by the way of composition of offence from the dealer and to specify in such order the time within which the money is to be paid to the Government treasury, date by which proof of such payment is to be produced, and the authority before whom such proof is to be produced. On payment of such amount only in terms of the order under Rule 39, the composition shall be completed and then only, ass provided by sub-section (2) of section 32, no further proceeding shall be taken against the person concerned in respect of the same offence. Till the payment is made, there is no composition. Even an order under Rule 39, accepting composition money and directing the payment thereof within a specified time, is a part of process of composition. If the payment is not made, the entire exercise to compound the offence will fair and the proceedings initiated against the person concerned for the alleged commission at the offence shall continue and the authority concerned shall be free to proceed with the same. It will not be correct to say that the composition, like an ordinary contract, is complete the moment there is an offer to compound by the person concerned and acceptance thereof by the authority. There cannot be any offer without specifying the amount that the person concerned is willing to pay by way of composition money. Not because a person made an offer to compound, the authority gets any power to determine the maximum amount of composition money that may be payable under section 32 and enforce payment of the same. Determination of amount of composition by a concerned authority can he treated only as suggested to the dealer of the amount that may be acceptable to the authority. It is for the dealer to consider the same and make an offer. If no offer, is made, what the authority can do is to forget all about the talk: of composition and proceed with action under the law for the alleged commission of the offence. From the facts of the instant case, it appears/that on the next day after the seizure, the petitioner, having been told of the provision of composition, 'expressed his desire to opt for the same, but on having been further told that he would be required to pay sales tax amounting to Rs. 10,00l)/- on the value of the lottery tickets as well as composition money equal to double the said amount i.e. Rs,.:0,000/-, he refused to compound. According to the Commissioner, under such circumstances the officer was empowered to determine the amount of tax and composition money and direct payment of the same. 10,00l)/- on the value of the lottery tickets as well as composition money equal to double the said amount i.e. Rs,.:0,000/-, he refused to compound. According to the Commissioner, under such circumstances the officer was empowered to determine the amount of tax and composition money and direct payment of the same. The Commissioner has justified such action as in accordance with section 32 of the Act. Tee petitioner has challenged this as contrary to toe very schema of composition contem, plated by section 32 of the Act. We are inclined 10 agree with the petitioner. As already discussed above, the authorities have no power to impose compensation. It is an option given to a person charged with an off-nee under the At. is not a power vested in the officer to impose composition money like penalty. The officer has simply been given power or authority to accept the offer of such person to compound the offence. This power or authority vested in he officer, however, is not an arbitrary or naked power but is coupled with a duty to exercise the same as and when facts and circumstances of the case so demand. An officer cannot refuse to accept composition, nor he can insist on payment of maximum amount of composition money without due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. He is expected to apply his mind to the facts of the case in a judicious manner and to arrive at a conclusion as to whether to accept the offer made by the person concerned or if it is on the lower side, to suggest him a higher amount, which, if offered, might be accepted. Refusal to exercise this power or arbitrary exercise thereof will amount to violation of the mandate of the law.- In the instant cage, it appears that both the Superintendent of Taxes and the Commissioner mis-interpreted and mis-understood the provisions of section 32 of the Act-the object, scheme and purport thereof and wrongly took it as a power to impose composition money at the maximum rate on a person" whohas expressed his desire to compound the offence and to realise the amount so determined by coereive-means. Evidently, that is neither the correct interpretation nor a correct approach. The impugned orders of the authorities, therefore, cannot be sustained. Evidently, that is neither the correct interpretation nor a correct approach. The impugned orders of the authorities, therefore, cannot be sustained. It may be appropriate to mention here that section 32 only deals with the payment of composition. money the maximum amount whereof is specified under the section. It dies not require payment of tax etc. Reference to tax, interest or penalty in section 32 is only by way of abundant caution to make it clear that composition of offence by payment of composition amount only absolves a person from further proceeding against him in respect of the alleged offence, but it does not relieve him of the liability to pay tax, interest or penalty that may be due from him under the provisions of the Act. Such tax etc. may be determined in the usual course and paid by the dealer accordingly. It is not a part of the composition money which is in addition to it. In the instant case, the Superintendent of Taxes, respondent No.2, asked the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of sales tax on lottery tickets valued at Rs.50,000/. Evidently, no such tax was payable because by then the tickets had not been sold. It was not the case of the Department that the petitioner had sold the lottery tickets and evaded payment of tax. The only allegation against him was that he imported lottery tickets in contravention of the requirement of section 37 (I) of -the Act i.e. without fulfilling the procedure laid down in the said section and the rules framed thereunder. There was no question of levy of sales tax on the sale of tickets, which, to the1 full knowledge of the Department, had not taken place as the tickets at that point of time were lying in the custody of the said authority itself. Sales tax under the Act being payable only on sales effected in the State, the stage had not come even to allege sale of lottery tickets or to seek to levy any sales tax thereon. This was not a case of evasion of sales tax. On the allegations made by respondent No.2 itself, it was only a case of violation of the requirement of section 37 (1) of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. This was not a case of evasion of sales tax. On the allegations made by respondent No.2 itself, it was only a case of violation of the requirement of section 37 (1) of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. This case, therefore, is one which falls under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act and the maximum composition money that was payable was Rs. 1,000/-only. The authorities in the instant case demanded Rs. 20,000/- by way of composition money and Rs.l0,000/- by way of sales tax on the sales which had admittedly not taken place. On this score also, in our opinion, the action of the authorities was not in accordance with law. One more aspect that needs consideration in this case is whether contravention of the provisions of section 37(1) is punishable under section 29 of the Act. In the instant case, allegation against the petitioner was that he had contravened the provisions of 37(1) of the Act and the action proceeded on the basis that it was an offence punishable under section 29 of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged this action on the ground that such violation, if any, constituted an offence punishable under sub-section (3) of section 37 and not section 29. We have considered the submission. Section 29 of the Act deals with certain offences. Sub-section (1) thereof specifies the various offences which are 12 in number and provides for punishment with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or with both; and in case of a continuing offence, with a daily fine not exceeding fifty rupees during the period of continuance of the offence. Contravention of the provisions of section 37 (1) of the Act has not been specified as an offence under any of the clauses of sub-section (1) of section 29. It is, therefore, not an offence under section 29 (1) of the Ac'. In fact, there was no provision in the Act, as originally enacted, to provide for punishment incase of contravention of sub-section (1) of section 37 which was originally section 37 and re-numbered as sub-section (1) by the Tripura ales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 1984. By the aforesaid Amendment Act, three new sub-sections, namely, sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) were inserted. In fact, there was no provision in the Act, as originally enacted, to provide for punishment incase of contravention of sub-section (1) of section 37 which was originally section 37 and re-numbered as sub-section (1) by the Tripura ales Tax (Third Amendment) Act, 1984. By the aforesaid Amendment Act, three new sub-sections, namely, sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) were inserted. Sub-section (2) empowers the Commissioner to search any place, vehicle or thing which may be suspected of being used for such contravention of the provision of sub-section (I), Sub-section (3) makes contravention of sub-section (I) of section 37 an offence and provides for punishment. It reads : "(3) Any person who contravenes the provision of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both." Sub-section (4) says that an offence under this section shall be bailable and cognizable. It is thus clear that the contravention of the provisions of sub-section (Ij of section 37 is an offence punishable under sub-section (3) of section 37 and not under section 29 of the Act, as held by the Superintended t of Taxes and the Commissioner of Taxes. The next question for consideration is what is the scope and ambit t f section 37 of the Act. Section 37 prohibits a person from taking delivery or transporting from any railway station, airport, post office etc. any consignment of taxable goods exceeding such quantities and except in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed. It reads 37 Restriction on movement (1) No person shall take delivery or transport from any railway station, airport, post office, or any other place whether of similar nature or otherwise, notified in this behalf by the State Government, any consignment of taxable goods exceeding such quantities and except in accordance with such condi­tions as may be prescribed. Such conditions shall be ma e with a view to ensure that there is no evasion of the tax imposed by this Act. Such conditions shall be ma e with a view to ensure that there is no evasion of the tax imposed by this Act. (2) If the Commissioner has reason to believe that any person has contravened or attempted to contravene the provision of sub-section (1) in respect of any taxable goods, he may seize such goods together with any container or other materials used for packing such goods and for the said purpose search any place, vehicle or thing which may be suspected of being sued for such contravention. (3) Any person who contravenes the provision of sub-section (1 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. (4) An offence under this section shall be bailable and cognizable." The conditions have been prescribed in Rules 45 to 48 of the Rules. These rules, so far as relevant, read as follows : "45. No person, other than a registered dealer, shall take delivery of or transport from any railway station, Post Office, Air-port, business place of any transporter, carrier or transporting agent or in other place whether of similar nature or otherwise in Tripura any consignment of taxable goods dispatched from outside Tripura: Provided that this restriction shall not apply to any consignment which does not exceed- (a) in case of goods sold by quintal and kilogram - 5 kilograms in weight. (h) in case of goods sold by litre - 5 litres in volume. (c) in case of goods sold by metre - 5 metres in length. (d) in case of goods sold by piece - I in number. (e) in case of goods sold by gross - 1 gross in number. (f) in case of goods sold by dozen - I dozen in number (g) in case of goods sold by pair - 1 pair (h) in case of precious stones, namely, diamonds, emeralds, rubies, real pearls and sapphires synthetic or artificial precious stones, pearls artificial or cultured ~ 1 gram in weight. 46. (f) in case of goods sold by dozen - I dozen in number (g) in case of goods sold by pair - 1 pair (h) in case of precious stones, namely, diamonds, emeralds, rubies, real pearls and sapphires synthetic or artificial precious stones, pearls artificial or cultured ~ 1 gram in weight. 46. A registered dealer shall, before hiking delivery of or transpor­ting from any place specified in Rule 45, any consignment of taxable goods exceeding the quantities specified in the said rule and dispatched from any place outside Tripura, produce for counter signature before the Superintendent or Inspector the railway receipt, bill of lading or other document required for the purpose of obtaining delivery of such consignment from the carrier. He shall simultaneously make over to the Superintendent a written declaration in Form XVIII in duplicate and duly signed. "47. The Superintendent or Inspector shall on being satisfied about the correctness of the statement made and particulars contained in a declaration in Form XVIII countersign the railway receipt, bill of lading or other documents and shall seal it with his official seal. Both copies of the declaration made by the dealer shall be endorsed with the number of railway receipt, hill of lading or other documents as the case may be and the date of counter signature of the aforesaid document and they shall be signed by the Superintendent or Inspector and sealed with his official seal. One copy of the declaration shall thereupon be returned to the dealer and the other copy retained by the Superintendent or Inspector. 48. Notwithstanding anything continued in Rule 45 the Superintend­ent of Taxes of any area or any Inspector specially authorised by him in writing in this behalf may for good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing authorise any person to take delivery of or transport any consignment of taxable goods exceeding the quantities specified in the said Rule 45 from the place in such area.". The question that falls for determination is whether sub-section (1) of section 37 read with Rules 45 to 48 can be interpreted to apply in case of goods not consigned by a person but carried by him as his personal baggage. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the taxable goods in question, namely, the lottery tickets, were carried by the petitioner while travelling by air, as his personal baggage. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the taxable goods in question, namely, the lottery tickets, were carried by the petitioner while travelling by air, as his personal baggage. His baggage was checked at the airport, and the lottery tickets found therein were seized on the ground of alleged contravention of sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Act. If sub-section (1) of section 37 does not apply to personal baggage, in that case question of contravention thereof would not arise and the entire action taken by the sales tax authorities would be illegal and without jurisdiction. If it is held that the restriction contained in sub-section ft) applies to personal baggage also, then it has to be found out as to how the requirement of this subsection read with the relevant Rules can be complied with by any person carrying such baggage. We have carefully read section 37 (1) and Rules 45 to 48 framed thereunder. From a reading of the section, it appears that, the restriction applies to taking delivery or transporting from any railway station, post office, or any other place whether of similar nature or otherwise, notified in this behalf by the State Government, any consignment of taxable goods exceeding such quantities as may be prescribed. It has been specifically made clear in sub-section (1) of section ?7 that such condition shall be made with a view to ensure that there is no evasion of the tax imposed by the Act, Evidently, the restriction is regulatory in nature. This restriction as contained in sub­section (i) of section 37 has been reiterated in Rule 45 with the addition of the words ''business place of any transporter, carrier or transporting agent" to the places specified in the said sub-section. The restriction has also been confined to "any consignment of taxable goods dispatched from outside Tripura". The restriction contained in sub-section (1) of section 37, therefore, does not apply to taking delivery of consignments of taxable goods dispatched from any place within the State of Tripura. The maximum quantity which can be taken delivery of without complying the requirement of section 37(1) has been specified in the said Rule. The requirements to be fulfilled before taking delivery have also been specified in Rules 46 and 47 of the Rules. The maximum quantity which can be taken delivery of without complying the requirement of section 37(1) has been specified in the said Rule. The requirements to be fulfilled before taking delivery have also been specified in Rules 46 and 47 of the Rules. Rule 46 requires a registered dealer, before taking delivery of any consignment of taxable goods exceeding the quantities specified in Rule 45 from any place specified therein, to produce for counter signature before the Superintendent or Inspector "the railway receipt, bill of lading or other document required for the purpose of obtaining delivery of such consign­ment from the carrier". Rule 46 provides that he is also required to make over a declaration in Form XVIIf giving the requisite particulars of the consignment, which include the name of the consignee, the name of the consignor, invoice number, Railway receipt or bill of lading or Air N,) the number etc. Rule 47 provides that the Superintendent or the Inspector on being satisfied about the particulars contained in the declaration, countersign the railway receipt, bill of lading or other documents and shall seal it with his official seal. Thereafter, person concerned can take delivery of the goods. These are broadly the conditions on fulfillment of which the restriction imposed by section 37 (1) is lifted and a person can take delivery of the consignment From a careful scrutiny of the provisions of section 37(1) and Rules 45 to 48 and the scheme thereof, it is clear that these provisions contemplate cases where consignments have been booked from any place outside the State of Tripura to a place within the State of Tripura and a document, namely, railway receipt, consignment note, air note or any other document has been issued by the carrier on production of which only the delivery of the goods can be obtain,. In such cases, the consignee is entitled to take delivery and the carrier is bound to deliver the goods on production of the railway receipt, consignment note etc However, section 3 7(1) puts a restric­tion on a consignee and prohibits him from taking delivery of the consignment it" it happens to be of taxable goods exceeding the quantities specified in Rule 45, without fulfilling the conditions specified in Rules 45 to 48. In such a case, he has to first produce the consignment note railway receipt etc. In such a case, he has to first produce the consignment note railway receipt etc. along with the declaration before the taxing authority and on getting counter signature from him only he can take delivery- All these requirements clearly go to show that section 37 applies only to consignments of taxable goods dispatched from outside Tripura to any place within Tripura delivery whereof can be taken only on production of document like consignment note, railway receipt, air note or the like, personal baggage is not referred toil common parlance or commercial parlance as "consignment” nor it is, in fact, delivered to the carrier for carriage. It is carried by the passenger himself though due to operational reasons only a part of it is allowed to be kept by him by his side as hand-baggage in the aircraft, couch etc. and the balance is kept in a separate space in the s me vehicle earmarked for the purpose. Keeping a part of the personal baggage in such place does not in any way, convert it into a consignment, inasmuch as no consignment note or document of I' e type containing the description of the consignment or the particulars of the contents thereof is issued for such baggage. It is always treated as personal baggage of the passenger which remains in his own custody except during a short period of journey when it is kept in the earmarked space for facility and convenience. That being so it does not have any of the attributes of a ''consignment of goods”. The issue may be considered from another angle also. Even of on stretching the meaning of the word 'consignment' or otherwise, ''personal baggage" is held to be a consignment, then the question that arises for consideration is whether it is in any way possible for a passenger to fulfill the conditions laid down in Rules 45 to 48. These requirements have been prescribed keeping in view the "consignment of goods" as ordinarily understood and not personal baggage. None of them apply to personal baggage. Nor they can be fulfilled in case of such baggage. There is no consignment note etc. in case of such baggage nor there is any time lag between arrival of goods and taking delivery thereof to enable any passenger to obtain any permission or clearance from any taxing authority before taking delivery thereof. None of them apply to personal baggage. Nor they can be fulfilled in case of such baggage. There is no consignment note etc. in case of such baggage nor there is any time lag between arrival of goods and taking delivery thereof to enable any passenger to obtain any permission or clearance from any taxing authority before taking delivery thereof. In fact, personal baggage being personal baggage, question of taking delivery even does not arise. Some part of it known as hand baggage, already remain with the passenger. The balance baggage is simply to be "collected”. There is no "delivery" of the same as such. If section 37 (I) is held to apply to personal baggage, then the conditions to be fulfilled n case of carriage of such goods shall have to be prescribed. From a reading of Rules 45 to 48 it is clear that no such conditions have been prescribed. Nor any machinery has been set up at the airport, railway station etc. to enable a passenger to declare his baggage etc. It may be apposite to refer here to the provisions of the Customs Act. That Act contains restrictions on taking delivery of the goods imported from outside the country without custom clearance, payment of duty etc. But under that Act also, the provisions relating to clearance of consignments do not apply to personal baggage. Special provi­sions have been made therein regarding baggage. Sections 77 to 81 of the said Act deal with the same. By section 81, power has been vested in the Board to make regulations providing for the manner of declaring the contents of any baggage and to provide for the custody, examination, assessment to duty and clearance of baggage etc. In exercise of the said powers special Rules for the purpose, namely, Baggage Rules and Tourist Baggage Rules have been framed. This also goes to show that the restriction regarding taking delivery of “consignment of goods" cannot apply to ''personal baggage". If any restriction is sought to be imposed by the State Gover­nment on carriage of goods as personal baggage also, specific provisions will have to be made to that effect and requisite machinery set up for the purpose to enable a passenger to get clearance at the entry point like airport, railway station itself as is done under the Customs Act. We do not propose lo enter into that aspect of the matter nor do we like to express any opinion as to whether any such restriction, if imposed, will be reasonable or not, as in the instant case it is not necessary do so as we are of the opinion that section 37 (1) is not applicable to personal baggage of a person. We, therefore hold that the search of the personal baggage of the petitioner by the sales tax authorities at airport in the instant case was itself illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner was entitled to carry the taxable goods, namely, the lottery tickets with him. There is no restriction in the Act in carrying such goods and entering the State of Tripura. The restriction is not on the import or bringing of any goods in the State of Tripura. Restriction under section 37 (1) is only on taking delivery of any consignment of taxable goods from certain specified places like railway station, post office, airport etc. Without following the requirement and making declaration before the authorities under the Act and getting an endorsement from them on the consignment note, railway receipt, air note etc. In that view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that the very initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner was illegal and without jurisdiction. We have already held that even if proceedings were to be held to be valid, the imposition of composition money and forcible realisation thereof was also illegal. We, there ore, set aside and quash (he impugned ciders passed by the Superintendent of Taxes and the Commissioner of Taxes an direct the respondents to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 30,000/- which was realised from him by way of composition money and sales tax, within two months from today. In the result, this petition is allowed. Under the facts and circumsta­nces of the case, we direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the petitioner by way of costs.