JUDGMENT 1. .- The State Bank of India has challenged the action of the Commercial taxes Department at seizing the goods, the documents including the bills and Railway Receipts of goods purchased by the Bank. The respondent No. 3, M/s. Shree Phool Industries (Phool Oil Mills)Bhuratpur was granted credit facility by the petitioner and the hill of exchange (hundi) drawn in favour of intending purchaser to make the payment of the value specified in Hundi to the petitioner giving complete details and the descriptions of the goods, goods receipts, showing the petitioner as the consignee were purchased and the full payment was credited to the account of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has entered into an agreement for sale with the purchaser in whose name the bill and hundi were drawn. In order to avoid the facility of loan the documents were handed over and sold to the petitioner. When the goods were in transit on October 16, 1981, 199 tins of mustared oil were attached fist the recovery of sales-tax dues outstanding against Phool Oil Industries of Rs. 19,928/- and Rs. 19,852.68 P. for the year 1981-82. It was found from the despatch register that these goods were despatched by M/s. Phool Oil Industries and as such the goods were attached. A representation was made to the Commercial Taxes Officer by the petitioner that too without avail. It has been submitted that the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in accordance with Anr. 4 it is mentioned in the GR that the consignment will not be detained, divested, re-routed, or re-booked without the consignee Bank's written permission and the name of the consignee has been shown as State Bank of India. The GR is to be endorsed in favour of Dwarka Prasad Shyambabu on making the payment and till then the Bank is having the title over the goods and the documents. 2. The submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the State is having priority over the goods of a dealer and the Bank is not the purchaser of the goods and no title vests with it. In respect of dues outstanding of the Commercial Taxes Department the recovery can be made and the State will have the first right over it. 3. I have not considered over the matter. In respect of dues outstanding of the Commercial Taxes Department the recovery can be made and the State will have the first right over it. 3. I have not considered over the matter. It may be noted that the provisions of Section 11-AAAA provide that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force any amount of tax, penalty, interest or any other sum payable by a dealer or any other person under the Act shall be the first charge on the property of the dealer or such person. The provisions cannot be given more effect beyond what has been mentioned in the section itself and the provisions of Section 11-AAAA have no application. It may be observed that the word 'any law' has been used under Article 254 of the Constitution of India and refers to in the context of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act which has been enacted by the State Legislature and an Act of State Legislature cannot over- ride over the provisions of Central legislature. A similar controversy was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley v. State, 1958(9) STC-354, wherein the question of 'sale' as incorporated in the local law was considered to be contrary to the provisions of definition of 'sale' as given under the Sales of Goods Act which is a Central Act. It was held that the definition under the State Act which is not in conformity with the definition given in the Act of Parliament is bad in law. Section 171 of the Indian Contract provides that Bankers, factors, wharfingers attorneys of a High Court and Policy-brokers may in the absence of a contract to the contrary retain as security for a general balance of account any goods bailed to them but no other persons have a right to retain as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect. In Misa v. Currie, 1876-I-Appeal Cases, 554, it has been held a banker's lien when it was not excluded by the special contract expressly or impliedly extends to all the bills charges and money entrusted or paid to him by all security deposits in his character as a banker. 4. In Misa v. Currie, 1876-I-Appeal Cases, 554, it has been held a banker's lien when it was not excluded by the special contract expressly or impliedly extends to all the bills charges and money entrusted or paid to him by all security deposits in his character as a banker. 4. Section 172 of the Contract refers to pledge, pawner and pawnee and under Section 173 the pawnee may retain the goods pledged not only for payment of the debt or the performance of the promise, but for the interest of the debt and all necessary expenses incurred by him in respect of the possession or for the preservation of the goods pledged. In Bank of Bihar v. State of Bihar, 1971-41, Company Cases 511, where the goods were pledged with the Bank on cash credit account in which the company had taken advances the attachment by the State Government claiming that the State has the first lien over the goods was not accepted and it was held that the Bank's right as a pawnee could not be extinguished by the seizure of the goods. Section 30(2) of the Sales of Goods provides that where a person having brought or agreed to buy goods obtains with the consent of the seller, possession of the goods or the documents of title to the goods, the delivery or transfer by that person or by a merchantile agent acting for him of the goods or documents of title under any sale, pledge or other disposition thereof to any person receiving the same in good faith and without notice of any lien or other right of the original seller in respect of the goods shall have effect as if such lien or right did not arise. It is an established mode of practice in commercial trade that GR are endorsed from one person to another. The person in whose favour the GR is endorsed may not be in physical possession of goods but has a legal right over it. In the present case the consignee is the Bank and the transaction is only financial transaction and not the transaction of purchaser or sale. The entire right, title or interest in respect of goods vests with the Bank and even the consignor has no power to endorse the GR in favour of any other person. In the present case the consignee is the Bank and the transaction is only financial transaction and not the transaction of purchaser or sale. The entire right, title or interest in respect of goods vests with the Bank and even the consignor has no power to endorse the GR in favour of any other person. According to the procedure which the Bank is adopting in giving the loan by discounting the hills and getting hundis drawn on the purchaser of the goods, the right crystalised in favour of the Bank the moment an advance was given by it. The GR/RR in such a case is prepared by the transporter showing the Bank as consignee. The Bank after crediting or making the payment to the consignor of the value of the goods for which hundi is drawn or bill is issued, will have the lien and the transporter in such a case is not expected to deliver the goods to anyother person as is evident in the note on the consignee's copy in the present case also. The fact of giving loan against the goods is not denied and is evident from the documents filed. The ultimate purchaser makes the payment to the Bank and the Bank endorses the GR/RR in favour of that purchaser. The Bank in such a case though not a purchaser of the goods or a dealer thereof, but the title vests in it on account of the loan advanced. The consignor has no power even to transfer those goods to any other person without the consent of the Bank. If the ultimate buyer refuses to take the delivery of the goods or the delivery is not taken within the stipulated time, the documents are returned hack by the branch to the branch from where they were sent and the account of the consignor is debited. From the procedure which is being followed it is evident that the Bank has the first right over the goods. Though it is not a case of pledge of goods as provided under the Contract Act the case stands on a better footing when the loan is advanced by the Bank and the goods and documents are the security thereof. From the procedure which is being followed it is evident that the Bank has the first right over the goods. Though it is not a case of pledge of goods as provided under the Contract Act the case stands on a better footing when the loan is advanced by the Bank and the goods and documents are the security thereof. In such a case the lien of the Bank is the first one and if there is any surplus after the sale of goods the State could claim only to the extent of the surplus which remains after satisfying the liability of the Bank. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The action of the respondents in seizing the goods is declared to he illegal. All the subsequent actions are also declared to be illegal and the Bank-guarantee which was directed to be given in the stay application of the Bank is directed to be returned to the Bank Authorities.Writ petition allowed. *******