LexBAGALKOT CITY MUNICIPALITY versus BAGALKOT CEMENT CO.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1.962
Th6 Commissioner of
/ncot111-tizx, Bombap
Cit'JI 1, Bombay
v.
Amarchand N. Skroj}
Kapur, J.
1962
Octob1r, 23.
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
of the deceased Amarchand and are not liable to be
taxed in the hands of the heirs and legal representa-
tives who cannot be deemed to be assessees for the
purpose of assessment in regard to those years.
In our view the High Court rightly answered
the question in the negative and against the Commis-
sioner of Income-tax. The appeals therefore fail
and are dismissed with costs.
Appeals dismissed.
BAGALKOT CITY MUNICIPALITY
v.
BAGALKOT CEMENT CO.
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, M.
HIDAYATULLAH and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Octroi Duty-Municipal District, connotation of-Octroi
limits equatd with municipal district-Extension of municipal
di-strict-Whether octroi limifll also extended-If extended area
liable to octroi duty-Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901
(Bom. 3 of 1901), 88. 3(5), 4, J8, 59-Bombay General Ohuses
Act, 1904 (Bom. 1of1904), s. 20.
The appellant nmnicipality
imposed octroi duty
on
certain goods brought within the octroi limits. The by-laws
fixed the octroi limits to be the same as the Municipal District.
Section 4 of the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901, under
which the municipality was constituted, empowered the
Government to declare any local area to be a municipal district.
At the time of the imposition of the octroi duty the respondent's
factory was situated outside the municipal district and was
not subject to the octroi duty. Subsequently, the Government
extended the municipal district so that the factory came to be
included within that district. The appellant contended that
upon such extension its octroi
lim~ts also stood extended to
include the factory and the respondent became liable to pay
octroi duty in respect of goods brought into the factoty.
/·
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
711
Held (per Das, Kapur and Sarkar,JJ., Hidayatullah and
Dayal,JJ., dissenting), that octroi duty was not leviable on the
respondent.
'l'he expression "1nunicipal distric('
in the Uy-
la\V referred to the municipal district as existin~ \\'lien the by-
law \\'as frarnc<l.
'fhe conte.."\.l prevented
the
definition
of
"municipal district" in the Act, namely) the nu1uicipal district
as fro1n time to time existing, from being applied under s.20
of the Bombay General Clauses Act, tu interpret the by-law.
The by-law had been made without being published to the
respondent, and if it was so read referring to the municipal
district fron1 time to tirne existing it would be in val id for
non-compliance with the provisions of s. 48 of the Act.
Per Hidayatul!ah and Dayal, JJ.-The uctroi
limits
fixed under the by-laws included the aica newly added to
the municipal district and the respondent was liable to pay
octroi duty on the goods entering its premis(js,
In view of
s. 20 of the Bombay General Clauses Act,
the expression
"municipal district" in the by-law will have the same mean-
ing as that expression has in the Act. There is
nothing
repugnant in the subject or context which would make this
definition inapplicable. At the time when the municipal district
was extended notice was published to the respondent and it
could have objected to the inclusion of the urea on the ground
that the bye-law imposing the octtoi duty would affect
it
adversely.
There is no express provision in the Act that no
rule or iby-law shall be applicable to the newly added area
till it is freshly enacted.
Rajnarain Singh v.
The C'hairrnan, Z:'a,tna
.. 4drnin-istra-
tion Committee, Patna, [1956] l S.C.R. 290, referred to.
CrvIL APPELLA'l'E J Ul\lSlllC'l'ION : Civil Appeal
No. 327 of 1962.
Appeal ~rom the ur<lers dated July 5, !\Jul, of
the Mysore High Court, Bangalore in Writ Petition
No. 556 of 1960.
iW. C. 8eta.lvad, Attorney Oeneral oj India
and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
0. K. D1,phlrtry, Solfritor 0Pnar1f of fndi'.ri
8. 'I'. Desai and l.N. Shroj]; for the respondent.
'
1962
Baga/kot City
Municipalit:JJ
v.
Bagalkot Ceme,nt Co.
1962
Btigalkat .City
Jlllllici_IJality
v.
Bag.U..t C.'11enl Co.
S(lfkar, J.
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19ti3] SUPP.
1962. October 23.
The Judgment of Das,
Kapur and Sarkar, JJ., was delivered by Sarkar, J.
The .Judgment of Hidyatullah and Dayal, JJ., was
delivered by Dayal, J.
SARKAR, ].-This is an appeal against a judg-
ment of the High Court of Mysore which heExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.