JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by OM PRAKASH, J. - This writ petition is filed by Union of India through General Manager, Northen Railway and by City Booking Agency, Bhoosa Toli, Kanpur, through its agent, M/s. Komal Prasad Ashok Kumar, Kamla Bazar, Hathras. 2. The writ petition is, inter alia, filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to release the consignment of 26 packages of utensils, seized by the Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, under section 13-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948) referred to hereinafter as "the Act", which was booked by the railway from the Hapur railway station to City Booking Agency, Bhoosa Toli. 3. On July 17, 1985, 26 packages of utensils were being brought from the railway parcel office to the railway city booking agency by a thela (hand driven cart) by one Matloob Ahmad and others. The goods were sized by the mobile squad of the sales tax department on the ground that the same were not accompanied by the documents, prescribed by the Act. The agent of the city booking agency contacted the Sales Tax Officer and pointed out that the goods were in transit to Bhoosa Toli City Agency and consequently the Sales Tax Officer could not have seized the same on the way to the city booking agency. The Sales Tax Officer, however, refused to deliver the seized goods. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, Kanpur, then initiated proceedings under section 13-A(6) of the Act against the goods seized on July 17, 1985. A show cause notice under section 13-A(3) read with section 28-A of the Act had been issued to Matloob Ahmad calling upon him to appear on July 18, 1985 before the Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Kanpur. On behalf of the railway, a representation was made and one Sri Rajendra Prasad, Senior Research and Development Officer appeared on behalf of the railway administration. The railway relying on section 28-A(8) of the Act pleaded that the goods seized on July 17, 1985 were in its custody which would end only after the goods having been delivered to the consignee and the sales tax department had no power to seize the goods in view of sub-section (8) of section 28-A of the Act. The railway relying on section 28-A(8) of the Act pleaded that the goods seized on July 17, 1985 were in its custody which would end only after the goods having been delivered to the consignee and the sales tax department had no power to seize the goods in view of sub-section (8) of section 28-A of the Act. The railway contended that so long as the consignment was not delivered to the consignee, the goods transported through the railway would continue to remain in the custody of the railway and that the department would have the power to seize the goods only after the delivery of the consignment was made over to the consignee. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, held on August 28, 1985 that the goods had been delivered to the consignee and, therefore, the Sales Tax Officer was fully competent under section 13-A(6) to seize the goods, since they were found not having been accompanied by documents. The Deputy Commissioner held that the goods were no more in the custody of the railway and, therefore, the protection given by sub-section (8) of section 28-A of the Act, could not have been availed of by the city booking agency. 6. The impugned order dated August 28, 1985 (annexure I to the writ petition) was sought to be quashed in the writ petition before this Court by the petitioners. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition by judgment dated September 30, 1986 [Union of India v. Sales Tax Officer (C.M.W.P. No. 914 of 1986 decided on September 30, 1986)]. The impugned order dated August 28, 1985 of the Deputy Commissioner was quashed by this Court holding as follows : ".... In order to decide this controversy, the proper course would have been to summon the papers from the railway administration and to find out the fact. But, instead of doing so, the Deputy Commissioner considered irrelevant materials and held wrongly that the possession had been handed over by it to the consignee. To us it appears that as the relevant papers had not been taken into account, the decision reached by the Deputy Commissioner was invalid... The railway administration was not given proper opportunity to produce the records to demonstrate that delivery had not been taken away. To us it appears that as the relevant papers had not been taken into account, the decision reached by the Deputy Commissioner was invalid... The railway administration was not given proper opportunity to produce the records to demonstrate that delivery had not been taken away. The circumstances, such as octroi was paid by Raj Kumar and goods were being taken in a thela driven by Matloob Ahmad and others, were wholly irrelevant. The payment of octroi did not or could not establish that the delivery of the goods had passed on from the railway to the consignee. Similarly, if services of Matloob Ahmad had been utilised for taking the goods from railway parcel office to the sub-agency, the Deputy Commissioner could have not held that the goods at the time of seizure belonged to the consignee and its possession was not with the railway department." 7. This is how this Court while deciding the writ petition had taken the view that the goods transported through the railway, continued to remain in the custody of the railway and, therefore, the protection as provided by sub-section (8) of section 28-A of the Act, could be availed of by the petitioners and that the seizure of the goods whilst they were in the custody of the railways, was illegal. 8. This Court also pointed out that the "Sales Tax Department also does not claim its right to seize the goods while in custody of the railway" and thus correct interpretation of sub-section (8) of section 28-A was not in dispute. What was disputed was the finding of fact as recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that the delivery of the goods had been taken by the consignee from the railways. 9. What was disputed was the finding of fact as recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that the delivery of the goods had been taken by the consignee from the railways. 9. The judgment dated September 30, 1986 of this Court [Union of India v. Sales Tax Officer (C.M.W.P. No. 914 of 1986)] came to be challenged before the Supreme Court in appeal and then the Supreme Court [Sales Tax Officer v. Union of India [1995] 96 STC 602 (SC)] set aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the matter to this Court for a fresh decision on two counts: (1) whether the city booking agencies established at Kanpur - or for that matter anywhere else in the State of Uttar Pradesh - fall within the expression "railway" as defined in section 3(4) of the Railways Act, 1890 or section 2(31) of the Railways Act, 1989, and (2) whether the Deputy Commissioner was right in holding that the delivery of the goods had been taken by the consignee from the railway before the goods were intercepted and seized by the mobile squad, sales tax. 10. So far as the finding of fact as recorded by the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, the Supreme Court held in its judgment dated November 21, 1994 (reported as Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur v. Union of India [1995] 96 STC 602; 1995 UPTC 273) : "3. .....Accordingly, the Officer submitted a seizure report on July 19, 1985, to the Deputy Commissioner. In the said report, the officer stated that on July 18, 1985, he found on verification at the octroi post maintained by the Municipal Corporation, Kanpur, situated near platform No. 1 in the Rail Bazar area of the Kanpur Central Railway Station that the octroi with respect to said goods was deposited by one Raj Kumar under receipt No. 9953/77 dated July 17, 1985, at 5.10 p.m. in a sum of Rs. 308.25 and that the payment of octroi by Sri Raj Kumar established that the said goods had been delivered to the said Raj Kumar at the railway station itself and further that the story of said goods being transported from the Railway parcel godown to Bhoosa Toli city booking agency of the railways could not be true. 308.25 and that the payment of octroi by Sri Raj Kumar established that the said goods had been delivered to the said Raj Kumar at the railway station itself and further that the story of said goods being transported from the Railway parcel godown to Bhoosa Toli city booking agency of the railways could not be true. The report stated further that if the story of transport from the Railway godown to the City booking agency had been true, there was no occasion or necessity for paying the octroi and that too by a stranger. On the basis of the said report, proceedings were taken by the Deputy Commissioner (SIB), Sales Tax, Central Zone, Kanpur, under section 13-A(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act. It is in these proceedings that the railway officials appeared and applied for release of goods contending that inasmuch as the goods were being transported from railway godown to the city booking agency, Bhoosa Toli, which according to them was indeed a part and parcel of the 'Railway' as defined in the Railways Act, the seizure of the goods was unlawful. The Deputy Commissioner considered the said plea and rejected it under an elaborate order dated August 20, 1985. The Deputy Commissioner referred to the facts stated in the report of the seizing officer and observed that 'it is a well-known fact that the responsibility of depositing the octroi tax with regard to any consignment by the consignee starts only after its being delivered to him by the transport agency and since the octroi in the instant case was paid by Sri Raj Kumar, it is, therefore, established that the consignment/goods had been got released from the transport agency by Sri Raj Kumar'. The Deputy Commissioner further observed that Sri Matloob Ahmad was neither an employee of the Railway nor was he having a contract to transport the goods of railway alone. The Deputy Commissioner further pointed out that according to paragraph (4) of the agreement/contract between the railway and M/s. Komal Prasad Ashok Kumar, contractor of Bhoosa Toli city booking agency, the goods have to be transported between the railway station and the agency through a motor vehicle. In an emergency, however, they could be transported by other means but before so transporting by other means, prior permission/approval from the railway had to be obtained. In an emergency, however, they could be transported by other means but before so transporting by other means, prior permission/approval from the railway had to be obtained. The Deputy Commissioner referred to the statement of the representative of the railway to the effect that no such permission or approval was asked for or given by the railway administration for the said consignment. He also referred to the statement of the railway representative on August 7, 1985, that the said representative 'could not tell as to on whose behalf Sri Matloob Ahmad was transporting the goods/consignment under reference'. The Deputy Commissioner also stated in his order that with a view to verify the gate pass produced by the railway, the statement of Sri Rajendra Prasad, a Senior Research and Development Officer, Railway, was recorded who stated that the gate pass which was produced was not a copy of any gate pass issued by the railway but that it should be considered as a certificate and that it was issued on the basis of the transfer register. The said official further stated that ordinarily 'the goods/consignment which is made to deliver by the railway parcel office to the city booking agency is entered in the register and signatures in token of its having been received are obtained but no such entry is made in the records of the railways about the fact that through what means of transport the goods/consignment was transported and by whom transported after it is released by the railway booking agency'. On the above basis, the Deputy Commissioner concluded that the gate pass produced does not establish that the said goods were being transported to the Bhoosa Toli city booking agency. He also referred to the fact that the railway officials could neither produce the consignee of the said goods nor the respective railway receipts (bilties). Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application made by the railway officials." The Supreme Court further observed : "4. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the railway did not adopt the remedy of appeal provided by the statute but entered into some correspondence with the Commissioner of Sales Tax and, not getting satisfaction, approached the Allahabad High Court by way of the writ petition aforesaid. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the railway did not adopt the remedy of appeal provided by the statute but entered into some correspondence with the Commissioner of Sales Tax and, not getting satisfaction, approached the Allahabad High Court by way of the writ petition aforesaid. The division Bench which heard and allowed the writ petition found the order of the Deputy Commissioner erroneous." Having so observed, the Supreme Court reproduced the reasoning of the High Court and thereafter held in para 5 at page 607 of 96 STC; page 278 of UPTC as follows : "..... But before we consider the previous relevant to the above contention, it is necessary to clarify that the question whether the goods being transported from the railway godown were being in fact transported to city booking agency (assuming for a moment that it is part of Railway) is always a question of fact. A mere claim to that effect is not conclusive. In fact, the grievance of the sales tax authorities is that a large scale evasion is going on under the cover of transporting the goods from the railway station to the city booking agencies. Their case is that goods are being transported to the premises of dealers under the guise of and with the connivance of the said agencies and that this fraud is resulting in loss of crores of revenue to the state. We shall, therefore, first examine whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the Deputy commissioner in this case : Now, the power of the sales tax authorities to stop and check the goods being transported to satisfy themselves that they are being validly transported is undoubted. If they are satisfied that the goods being transported were imported into the State of Uttar Pradesh but that they are not accompanied by the documents/forms required by the Act and the Rules, they are entitled to seize the goods and levy the tax and penalty as is provided by law. The said power necessarily includes the power to decide the question whether the goods in fact were being transported to city booking agency or to some other place. The said power necessarily includes the power to decide the question whether the goods in fact were being transported to city booking agency or to some other place. In the present case, a finding was recorded by the Deputy Commissioner that the story of transport of the said seize goods to the city booking agency, Bhoosa Toli is untrue, for the several reasons recorded in his order. He was of the opinion that the goods were really being taken to some other place and since they were not accompanied by the requisite documents/forms, they are liable to be seized. The said finding is one of fact which could have been and ought to have been questioned in an appeal provided by the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act. It was not done and the High Court was approached directly by way of a writ petition. We must say, with due respect to the Division Bench of the High Court, which decided the matters, that they interfered with the finding of fact without even referring to the several grounds on which it was based. We have set out hereinbefore the several grounds on which the finding of the Deputy Commissioner is based and the reasons for which the said finding was set aside by the High Court, which clearly establishes that the High Court has not even referred to all the reasons and grounds assigned by the Deputy Commissioner and yet set aside his finding. Moreover, writ court cannot interfere with a finding of fact unless the finding is based on no evidence or is perverse, i.e., a finding which no reasonable person would have arrived at." 11. It will be seen that the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court [Union of India v. Sales Tax Officer (C.M.W.P. No. 914 of 1986 decided on September 30,1986)] quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner and, inter alia, remitted the question whether the Deputy Commissioner was right in holding that at the time of the seizure, the goods were not in custody of the railway and the sales tax authorities were free to seize the goods under section 13-A(6) and no protection as provided under sub-section (8) of section 28-A could be availed of by the petitioners, for consideration afresh according to law. From the above reproduced and delineated portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is manifest that the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner is a finding of fact which ought to have been questioned in an appeal, provided under the Act, if the petitioners felt aggrieved of that. In the light of these observations of the Supreme Court, we refrain from entering into the findings of fact, recorded by the Deputy Commissioner and hold that the petitioners may challenge such finding of the Deputy Commissioner which is a finding of fact in appeal, if not already challenged. 12. The Supreme Court yet observed towards the end of para 5 at page 608 of STC; 278 of UPTC as under : "This finding of ours should have concluded the civil appeal but we were requested by both the parties to determine the larger question, viz., whether the railway booking agencies do or do not form part of the 'railway' ? While we agree that the said question should be decided, we find that the relevant material is not placed before us for determining the said question and for that reason, the matter requires to be remitted to the High Court." 13. The Supreme Court remitted the question : whether the city booking agencies established at Kanpur - or for that matter anywhere else in the State of Uttar Pradesh fall within the expression "railway" as defined in section 3(4) of the Railways Act, 1890 or section 3(31) of the Railways Act, 1989 ? We, therefore, proceed to decide the aforementioned question. The Railways Act, 1989 (briefly, "the Act of 1989") has replaced the old Indian Railways Act, 1890 (for short, "the Act of 1890"). Since the seizure order is of 1985, the Act of 1890 is relevant for the purpose of this case. The definition of the expression "railway" under section 3(4) of the Act of 1890 is as follows : "'railway' means a railway, or any portion of a railway, for the public carriage of passengers, animals or goods, and includes - (a)......... (b)......... The definition of the expression "railway" under section 3(4) of the Act of 1890 is as follows : "'railway' means a railway, or any portion of a railway, for the public carriage of passengers, animals or goods, and includes - (a)......... (b)......... (c) all stations, offices, warehouses, wharves, workshops, manufactures, fixed plant and machinery and other works constructed for the purposes of, or in connection with, a railway; and (d)........." Definition of the term "railway" under the new Act of 1989 is almost the same excepting subtraction and addition of some words, which will not at all, much less substantially alter the definition of term "railway". Definition of the term "railway" under both the Acts being conceptually the same, the legal position in so far as the question whether the city booking agency, Bhoosa Toli, is railway, will remain the same. 14. The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that city booking agency, Bhoosa Toli, Kanpur, is an office of the railway where from the goods are booked by persons in the same manner as they were booked at a railway station and, therefore, the city booking agency being an office of the railway is nothing but railway within the meaning of section 3(4) of the Act of 1890. Section 3(4) also gives inclusive definition of the word "railway" and that includes offices set up for the purpose or in connection with the railway. The question is whether the city booking agency, Bhoosa Toli is an office of the railway. Indian Railway Commercial Manual, Volume II, compiles instructions, which have to be followed by the railway authorities. Chapter XXVI entitling out agencies, city booking offices and other ancillary services is relevant for the purpose of this case. Para 2631 refers to city booking office and city booking agency. Para 2633 provides that the instructions in regard to through booking arrangements, remittance of cash, submission of bills and additional returns in connection therewith, as detailed in the preceding paragraphs for out agencies will also apply to city booking offices/agencies. City booking office "and" and "out agencies" may be two different concepts but para 2633 indicates that the instructions which are applicable to out agencies, are also applicable to city booking agencies and, therefore, it is nothing but appropriate to refer to paragraphs relating to out agencies, which commence from para 2601. City booking office "and" and "out agencies" may be two different concepts but para 2633 indicates that the instructions which are applicable to out agencies, are also applicable to city booking agencies and, therefore, it is nothing but appropriate to refer to paragraphs relating to out agencies, which commence from para 2601. Para 2601 defines the expression "out agency" and states that an out agency is an office, opened in places situated away from the railway station, in order to facilitate the booking of traffic directly to or from such places in conjunction with the railway. Section 3(11) of the Act of 1890 defines the word "traffic" as under : "'traffic' includes rolling stock of every description, as well as passengers, animals and goods, etc." 15. Para 2603(a) provides that out agencies are usually worked through contractors appointed for the purpose under a contract with the railways. They arrange to provide the necessary road transport also. Where the out agency office is worked departmentally, the road transport is arranged through a contractor. It is clear that an out agency office may be worked through a contractor and also departmentally; when it is worked departmentally, then road transport will be arranged through a contractor. 16. Para 2603(b) mandates that the instructions contained in this manual or separately notified from time to time by the railway administration in regard to commercial working of the station, will also apply to the commercial working at the out agencies. 17. Para 2604 provides that all passengers, luggage, parcels and goods traffic offered for despatch at the out agency should be booked direct to destination stations including out agencies open for receipt of such traffic. No traffic should, however, be booked from an out agency to its serving station. The expression "serving station" in this para means a station of which the out agency is an extended hand. An out agency is nothing but a sub-office of a railway station. The railway station of which work is undertaken and shared by an out agency, is called the serving station. 18. Para 2605 says that the tickets, way bills, invoices and other money value books and forms prescribed for use at the railway stations should be used by the out agencies also. The railway station of which work is undertaken and shared by an out agency, is called the serving station. 18. Para 2605 says that the tickets, way bills, invoices and other money value books and forms prescribed for use at the railway stations should be used by the out agencies also. All the rules laid down for the indent, examination, custody, issue and use of such tickets, books, forms, etc., in this manual or notified separately to the staff, will equally apply to the out agencies. Para 2606 fictionally states that the booking of traffic from the out agency should be carried out as if the out agency is constituted by the railway administration. 19. The booking of traffic from railway station to the out agency will be done on luggage tickets, parcel, way bills, invoices, etc., in the same way as laid down for similar traffic booked to railway stations. (see para 2607). 20. Para 2608 requires that all outward luggage, parcels and goods booked from the out agency together with the connected booking documents, viz., luggage tickets, waybills, invoices, etc., should be made over to the concerned railway staff at the serving station along with a list in duplicate, of such packages in the pro forma appearing at appendix XXVI-A. This para enjoins upon the station staff receiving the packages from the out agencies to compare the entries in the list with the packages and booking documents and return one copy of the list to the out agent after indicating thereon the total number of packages received. 21. Para 2609 directs that the station staff receiving the packages from the out agent should enter the same in a transhipment register to be maintained for this purpose quoting the particulars of the despatch in the relevant column of the transhipment register. 22. Para 2610 relates to the consignments booked to the out agency and received at the serving station. It requires that the goods should be entered in a transhipment register to be maintained for this purpose and the out agency receiving the packages should compare the entries in the list with the packages mad over to him. 23. The out agency charges levy for transport of luggage, parcels or goods to and from the out agency which require to be shown separately on the luggage tickets, way bills and invoices. (see para 2612). 23. The out agency charges levy for transport of luggage, parcels or goods to and from the out agency which require to be shown separately on the luggage tickets, way bills and invoices. (see para 2612). The out agent will be responsible for collection of wharfage charges due at the rates prescribed in the local tariffs on all luggage, parcels and goods delivered at the out agency after the expiry of the prescribed free time (see para 2613). 24. Para 2614 enjoins upon the out agencies to account for the traffic booked to or from an out agency in the same manner and in the same books and forms as laid down in this manual for railway station. The out agent will be responsible for the correct collection of passenger fares and freight and other charges on luggage, parcels and goods traffic in accordance with the rules applicable for similar traffic at railway stations (see para 2615). The entire collection of the day must invariably be remitted to cash office/treasury/post office/reserve bank, etc., in accordance with the procedure approved by the railway administration and as laid down in the agreement (see para 2616). The out agents are not authorised to refund any freight or any part thereof except those allowed at the time of delivery (see para 2617). Para 2618 enjoins upon an agent to prepare all periodical and monthly returns relating to passenger, luggage, parcels and goods traffic dealt with at the out agency and also the balance sheet in connection therewith in the manner laid down for the station in this manual. 25. We have also gone through the agreement deed entered into between M/s. Kamal Prakash Ashok Kumar - contractor of the city booking agency, Bhoosa Toli, Kanpur, annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit (no agreement of any other contractor is filed by the railway). The said agreement deed does not contain any condition contrary to the instructions, as contained in the manual. From the above reproduced instructions and the agreement deed, it is amply clear that the city booking agency is the extended hand of the railways. The goods are booked at the city booking office in the same fashion as they are booked at the serving station. The city booking agency is set up only to facilitate the booking of traffic. From the above reproduced instructions and the agreement deed, it is amply clear that the city booking agency is the extended hand of the railways. The goods are booked at the city booking office in the same fashion as they are booked at the serving station. The city booking agency is set up only to facilitate the booking of traffic. If one does not find it convenient to go to the railway station, he can get his goods booked or ticket reserved at the city booking office. City booking office is nothing but an extended hand or a sub-office of the railway station. The city booking agency is fully controlled by the railway administration. For booking and transporting the goods, the contractor of the city booking agency receive remuneration for the services rendered as per the contract and the contractor is fully responsible for the safety of the goods as is the railway administration. It is the duty of the city booking agency to account for the entire parcels to the serving station and also the entire receipts. The city booking agency is required to maintain the same document/forms and that has to follow the same procedure as prescribed in the Manual for the railways. 26. From the manual and the agreement deed, the only inference that can be drawn is that the city booking agency is nothing but an office of the railway and hence "railway" within the meaning of section 3(4) of the Act of 1890 and of section 2(31) of the Act of 1989. Legal position of other city booking agencies will be the same if their agreements do not contain any condition, contrary to the instructions, as stated in the manual. But in this case, agreements of other agencies having not been filed, we will confine our observations only to the city booking agency being run by M/s. Kamal Prakash Ashok Kumar. 27. Legal position of other city booking agencies will be the same if their agreements do not contain any condition, contrary to the instructions, as stated in the manual. But in this case, agreements of other agencies having not been filed, we will confine our observations only to the city booking agency being run by M/s. Kamal Prakash Ashok Kumar. 27. As already pointed out, the Supreme Court (Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur v. Union of India [1995] 96 STC 6-2; 1995 UPTC 273) clearly held in its judgment while remitting the question of fact to this Court that even if the city booking agencies are covered by the expression "railway" as defined in the Railways Act, the sales tax/trade tax authorities of the State shall have power to check the transportation of the goods/consignment from the railway station/godown to the city booking agencies to satisfy themselves that it is not transported to the city booking agency but to a different destination to defraud the revenue. The Deputy Commissioner in his impugned order found that 26 parcels of utensils were not being transported from the railway station to the city booking agency. This being a finding of fact could be challenged by the petitioners in appeal, if not already done so, according to law. 28. This question on the facts and circumstances of the case cannot and should not be decided in a writ petition under article 226, as its answer is dependent upon the appraisal of the evidence, adduced by both the parties. 29. Before parting with the case, we would like to observe for the advantage of the departmental authorities that before seizing the goods being allegedly transported to the city booking agency from the railway station, they should ordinarily verify the version of the contractor of the city booking agency from the record of the railway administration. It may not be possible for the contractor of the city booking agency to produce the entire material before the departmental authority right at the spot where the goods are intercepted, but the material to the satisfaction of the departmental authorities might be available with the railway administration, where requisite forms/registers/documents are maintained in connection with the booking and receipt of the parcels. Simply because the instructions compiled in the manual do not obligate upon the railway administration to supply all the documents in support of the fact that the goods had been received at the serving station and they were being transported to the city booking agency for being delivered to the respective consignees and for that reason goods-in-transit are without documents, no immediate inference could be drawn that the goods and documents were being transported to an unknown destination. The goods will normally be transported from the railway station to the city booking office under gate passes or other documents, prescribed under the Manual, but the goods-in-transit may not be accompanied by entire materials, available with the railway administration to establish that the goods, in fact, had been booked from outside to the city booking agency and they were being transported to the city booking agency from where the consignees are expected to take the delivery. The authorities before seizing the consignment-in-transit, should satisfy, as far as possible, and as the fact situation of a given case demands, whether necessary materials in support of the contention of the railway administration/city booking agency are available with the railway administration. If such course is followed then that would surely obviate avoidable litigation. 30. To sum up if the goods are booked from an outstation to the city booking agency, they will continue to be in the custody of the railway while they are being transported from the serving station to the city booking agency from where the goods are to be delivered to the consignees and to such goods-in-transit, protection as envisaged by sub-section (8) of section 28-A of the Act will be available. If the taxing authorities have reasonable doubt about the destination of the goods and/or custody of the railway, then the goods may be checked and seized by them to satisfy themselves whether the same goods are being transported which were booked from an outstation to the city booking agency and whether the destination of the goods is the city booking agency to which they were booked or some other place. If the railway administration and/or the contractor of the city booking agency is called upon by the sales/trade tax authorities to show the relevant documents in connection with the goods-in-transit, then the former would be liable to produce the same before the latter. 31. If the railway administration and/or the contractor of the city booking agency is called upon by the sales/trade tax authorities to show the relevant documents in connection with the goods-in-transit, then the former would be liable to produce the same before the latter. 31. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed subject to the finding recorded and observations made hereinabove. Petition dismissed.