ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 11-08-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
127 
ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 
August 11, 1971 
[S. M. S!KRI, C.J., A. N. RAY AND D.G. PALEKAR, JJ.] 
Punjab Municipality Act, 1911, s. 5 (4), 62 (10)--Notification imposing 
octroi if became automatically applicable to new areas included in Mimi-
cipa/ity by virtue of s. 5(4)-Notification, bye law difference bef1rep1. 
Section 5 (4) of the Punjab Municipality Act, 1911 enacts: "when 
any local area has been included in a municipality under sub-section 
(3) of this section of this Act, and, except as the State Government may 
otherwise by notification direct all rul<s, bye-laws, orders, diiections and 
powers made, or conferred under this Act and in force throughout the 
whole municipality at the time shall apply to such area." 
By a notification the industrial area within which the appellants' 
factory was situated was included within the municipality of Scnepat. 
Thereafter, the respondent-municipality 
purport<d 
to impose, levy 
and rollect 
from the aprdlant cctroi. The <:fPelient filed a writ 
petition in the High Court for restraining the municipality f1cm levy-
ing and collecting the octroi. The municipality relied upon the 
provisions contained ins. 5 (4) of the Act in support of the contention 
that the notification dated 3rd November 1942 issued m:der s. 62 
(IO) .of the Act notifying the imposition of octroi within the octroi 
limits of the Sonepat municipal limits became applicable to the areas 
included. The High Court dismissed the petition. 
It came to the 
conclusion that by reason of the provisions contained in s. 5 ( 4) of the 
Act the taxes would "automatically become leviable" to new areas 
included in the municipal limits. Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: The 
High Court was wrong in holding that the munici-
pality was competent to levy and collect octroi from the appellants 
by reason of the provision contained ins. 5 (4) of the Act. 
(i) Section 5 (4) of the Act speaks of rules, bye-laws, 01dw, d'J<c-
tions and powers and does not significantly, mention notification. The 
Act speaks of notification ceasing to apply to excluded areas, whereas, 
in the case of inclusion of areas the Act significantly omits any notifi-
cation being applicable to such areas. The legislative intent is, there-
fore, unambiguous that notifications would not be applicable to an 
included area on the strength of s. 5 (4). And s. 62 (10) of the Act 
speaks of notification for the imposition of taxes and such a notification 
is the statutory basis of the imposition and ltvy of tax. [133 HJ 
H 
(ii) The word 'notification' is not synonymous with rules, bye laws, 
-orders, directions and powers. The power to issue notifications or-
ders, rules or bye-laws refers to different and separate methods of ex-
pression of exercise of power under the statute. Bye-laws are entiiely 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1972] I S.C.R 
different from notifications imposing tax ar.d the bye-l£ws fixing the 
limits and prescribing the routes by which articles which are subject 
to octroi may be imported obviously cannot be equated with notifica-
tion of imposition of octroi. [134 C, G] 
Bagalkot City Municipality v. Bcgalkot Cement Co., [1963] Supp. 
A 
l S.C.R. 710, distinguished. 
Jl; 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
1927 and 2222 of 1970. 
Appeals from the judgment and order ctated May 18, 
1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ c 
Nos. 2014 and 2611 of 1967. 
C.K. Daphtary and /. N. Shroff, for the appellant 
(in C. A. No. 1927 of 1970). 
I. N. Shroff, for the appellant (in C.A. No. 2222 of 
1970). 
D 
V. C. Mahajan, and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent 
No. I (in both the appeals). 
M. C. Setalvad, N. S. Das Bahl, P. 
C. Bhartari• 
J.B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, for respondent 
No. 2 (in C. A. No. 1927 of 1970). 
E. 
P. C. Bhartari, 
J. B. 
Dadachanji 
and Ravinder 
Narain, for respondent No. 2 (in C. A. No. 2222 of 
1970). 
. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F' 
Ray, J. These two appeals are by certificate against 
the common judgment dated 18 May, 1970 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the applications 
of the appellants for a writ of mandamus restraining the 
Municipality of Sonepat from levying against and collect-
G 
ing from 
the appellants any octroi in respect of 
raw materials, components and parts imported by the 
appellants into the factory of the appellants situated at 
Industrial Area, Sonepat. 
The factory

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.