Judgment 1. This is a very small issue which is being kept lingering by the Sales Tax department without any cause and perhaps more on the ground of red tape. 2. The facts are not in issue. A consignment where, the consignor was one M/s Sonelal Ram Chandra, Gandhi Chauk, Madhubani was seized as it was being carried in a Truck bearing registration No. UHQ-829. The name of the truck driver was Ombir Singh and he carried a licence from the Union Territory, Delhi. 3. Whatever be the reasons the vehicle was seized on 15th April, 1995. It appears that the sales tax department indicated to either the consignor or the driver of the truck that a penalty be paid upon which the goods or the truck could be released. Thus within 48 hours that is on 17th April, 1995 a penalty of Rs. 37,360/- was paid. The imposition of penalty was challenged, as the matter was taken up in appeal. The appellant was driver of the truck but it is on record that the affidavit accompanying the appeal had been sworn by a partner of the firm M/s Sonelal Ram Chandra. Between the petitioners counsel and the State counsel the present facts are not in issue. 4. Now the question is of refund. Reply was given by the department that the person who deposited the penalty should apply for the refund. The question arose how would the consignor locate the driver who deposited the penalty six years ago? In the appeal, the affidavit was of the representative of the consignor. Whether in the department of sales tax somebody should have inquired that when the truck had been hired by a consignor for the transportation of goods, a contract of bailment was in duration and the position of consignor was that of a bailor. The driver, in case he was the owner of the vehicle or even otherwise, was at best a bailee. The goods had not seen delivery. In so far as the bailee is concerned, as his obligation was to take reasonable care of the goods and deliver them to whoever the consignee was, his liability to keep proper papers of the goods remains. 5. The goods had not seen delivery. In so far as the bailee is concerned, as his obligation was to take reasonable care of the goods and deliver them to whoever the consignee was, his liability to keep proper papers of the goods remains. 5. In the circumstances, having acknowledged in the counter affidavit that the department is prepared to refund the amount after the appeal challenging the penalty had succeeded not to deliver the refund on a technicality that only the driver may receive the refund is red tape. Clearly even the department knows that the bailor of the goods was the consignor. The department may satisfy itself that the refund is going to the correct person as to who had entered into a contract of bailment and put an end of this controversy where the issue of making a refund is no longer in issue. Suffice it to say that the refund will carry the statutory interest as has been provided in cases of refund under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 . 6. Mr. A. N. Singh, S.C. 8 assures the Court that upon certified copy of the order being placed and the refund being applied for by the consignor of the goods, the refund will be processed within a fortnight thereafter. The petition is allowed with cost.