BANGALORE WOOLLEN, COTTON AND SILK MILLS CO. LTD., BANGALORE versus CORPORATION OF THE CITY OE BANGALORE, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE CITY.

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 05-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

a S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
707 
BANGALORE WOOLLEN, COTTON AND 
SILK MILLS CO. LTD., BANGALORE 
v. 
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OE' BANGALORE, 
BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BANGA~ORE CITY. 
(with connected appeal and petitions) 
(S. K. Das, J. L. KAPUR, M. HrnAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH 
and T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAB, JJ.) 
M unicipality-Octroi-Constitutionality of-Final resolution 
for levying not published in Official Gazette-Defect, if can be vali-
dated-City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, r949 (69 of 
r949), ·ss. 38(I)(b), 98, IOJ, Sch. Ill, Part V, Classes I to Vlll-
Constitution of India, Arts. 276, 3or-Goverilment of India Act, 
r935 (26 Geo. V, Ch. 2), s. r42-A. 
The appellants in the two appeals and petitioners under 
Art. 32 of the Constitution challenged the constitutionality of the 
imposition of octroi duty on cotton and wool on the grounds that 
(1) the failure to notify the final resolution of the imposition of 
the tax in the Government Gazette as required by s. 98(2) of the 
City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act was fatal to the tax, 
and that (2) the imposition of the tax offended Art. 276 or 301 of 
the Constitution. 
Held, that the impugned octroi duty did not contravene the 
provisions of Arts. 276 and 301 of the Constitution. 
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) v. The Union of India [1960] 2 
S.C.R. 671, held inapplicahle. 
Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam [1961] l S.G.R. 
809, referred to. 
Section 38(1)(b) of the Act validated any defect or irregular-
ity in proceedings taken under the Act which did not afiect the 
merits of the case. The failure to publish the final resolution did 
not affect 'the merits of the imposition of the tax and was there-
fore not fatal to it. 
i• 
The mere fact that s. 38(1)(b) occurred in a chapter dealing 
with Municipal Authorities or the other parts of the Section dealt 
with another subject was no reason for confining its operation to 
those subjects only. 
Harla v. State of Rajasthan [1952] S.C.R. no and State of 
Kera/av. P. ]. Joseph A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 296, referred to. 
'fhe contention that the impugned tax contravened the pro-
visions of Art. 276 of the Constitution was not sustainable. Entry 
52 in List II of the Constitution and entry 49 in the Government 
of India Act, 1935, which relate to taxes on entry of goods into 
a local area are not afiected by Art. 272 of the Constitution and 
.I96I 
April 5. 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961) 
z96z 
s. r42-A of the Government of India Act, which are similar to 
-
each other and relate only to a distinct head of taxation i.e., 
~angalore Woollen, taxes on professions, trades and callings etc. 
Cotton and Sllh 
The Municipality of Chopda v. M otilal M anekchand I.L.R. 
Mills Co. Ltd. 
[r958] Born. 483, Gajadhar Hiralal Ginning and Pressing Factory v. 
v. 
The Municipal Committee, Washim I.L.R. [r958] Born. 628 and 
COYptwation of the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Karanja v. The New East India 
City 01 Bangalore Press Co. Ltd., Bombay A.LR. r949 Nag. 2r5, distinguished. 
Kapur]. 
Classes I to VII in Schedule III of Part V make certain speci-
fied articles taxable and Class VIII makes "other articles which 
~re not specified" taxable if approved by the Corporation. The 
qombined effect of ss. 97 and r30 and Part V of Schedule III 
including Class VIII is that the words used are of very general 
nature and would have the same effect as if all articles were 
intended to be and were included. 
Anwarkhan Mahboob Co. v. The State of Bombay [r96r] I S.C.R. 
709, followed. 
. 
/ 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeals 
Nos. 448 and 449of1957 
with 
Writ Petitions Nos. 97 and 107 of 1961. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated 
September 27, 1956, of the Mysore High Court in Writ 
Petitions Nos. 44 and 45 of 1955. 
M. C. Setal,vad, Attorney-General for India, N. C. 
Chatterjee, D. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghose, for the 
appellant in C. A. No. 448/57 and Petitioner in Writ 
Petition No. 97/1961. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, V. L. 
Narasimhamoorty, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, 
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for appellant in 
C. A. No. 449/57 and Petitioners in W. P. No. 107 of 
1961. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. R. Choudhri, for 
respondents in C. As. Nos. 448 and 449 of 57 and 
W. Ps. Nos. !'7 and 107/1961. 
1961. April 5. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
KAPUR, J.-A Divisional Bench of this Court made 
a reference* under the proviso to cl. (3) of Art. 145 on. 
the following
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.