LexMUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KHURARI versus DHANNALAL SETHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
166 MUNICIPAL COMMITfEE, KHURARI v. DHANNALAL SETHI & ORS. April 30, 1968 [J. M. SHELAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] l'tnt1al Provinces and Bt•ru1· ,\Junicipalitics Act, 1922-Rulrs made providing for refund of octroi d111y on rxport of goods on which duty paid al the tilne of in1porr-R. 27, if Rives a right of refund--Procedure prescribed in rr. 27 to 43 for ohtair1i11J! rc/1u1d not fol!ou1rd-Efjcct of. 'fhc fir:it anJ the second respondents purchased a quantity of food- grains from certain cultival\1rs 1,1,·ho h<1d in1port~d them into the municipal area of the appellant c·ornmi!lec and, at the time of in1portation. had paid octroi duty on those foodgrains. ·rhc first ant.'. the second respon- dent-; exported the identical _goods out of the municipal areas and there- upon applied for refund of octroi Jut\· paid on the (oOdJ.!rain'i. The appellant Committee refused to pav the refund mainlv on the l!TOund that the r\'~pondents had fnilcd to ·proc..lucc the receipts' of duty p'aid on the importation of the foodgrains. An <!ppcat to the Additi0nal Deputy Commissioner as \Veit as t~c revision :'lpplic;.ition to the BOard of Revenue v,·erc hoth dismissed. but a v.Ti.;: pctitinn against these orders \Vas allowed by the 1-Iigh Court v.·hich held that ari rxportcr was entitled under r. 27 to the refund of 7/Rth of the <lut\· paid on the goods cxporti:d. Subse. quently a Division Rench. in ~1ppeal. rcn1andcd thC case :o the Board for dealing with certain other contention-. raised by the appellant and after considering these. the Board ~:~t <1sidc the orders of the (:ommittcc and ~he DcputY Comn1issioncr and directed payment of the refund. The appellant Con1mittcc then fili.:d a \VTit petition chal\cngin.~ the order o[ the lloard hut this \\'as dismissed. the High Court holding, inter aUa, that the Rule-; did not require a claimant who had exportcc.i dutiable goods to produce receipt<; of payn1cnt of duty and that the amount of refund i<> to he determined from the quantity of food.grains exported or from their value. The Comn1ittec appealed by special lcavo to this Court. It was urged on its behalf that a person clain1ing refund ~·ould not be entitled to it unless he had follo\vcd the procedure pres~ cribcd by rr. 27 to 43, an<l tha.t this had not been done in .the present ca.'i'C. HELD : Dismissing the appca 1 : Though the rules lay do\~·n ;l procedure \\'hich an appellant seekini! refund has to follo\v, they do not provide at the same time that an applicant for refund who ~as !ailed r.o f?llO\V the procedure laid down in rr. 35 to 39 would be d1scnt1tled to claim the refund. In the absence of such a provision. coupled with tht.! categorical language of r. 27 giving a right to an exporter of dutiable goods to claim 7/Sth of the <lmv paid on such goods on their imporl. it becomes difficult to uphold the denial by the appellant Committee of the right of the first anti the second respondents to such a refund. [ 171 E-G] C1VIL APPELLATE JuRtSDICT!ON : Civil Appeal No. 545 of 1965. A c D E F .. G H . • :MUNICIPAL CO:M:MITTEE v. DHANNALAL (She/at, J.) 167 A Appeal by special leave from the judgmen( and ord~r da~ed December 18, 1961 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court m Misc. Petition No. 247 of 1961. B c D E F G H ,M. S. Gupta and Y ashpal Singh, for the appellant. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shela!, J. The appellant Municipal Committee is for the vil· !age Khurari, a notified area under the Central Provine.es and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922. The Committee is entitled to levy and collect under the said Act and under the Rules made thereunder octroi duty inter alia on foodgrains brought into the municipal limits for sale. On March 8, 1954, respondents 1 and 2 applied for refund of octroi duty on the ground that they had exported from the municipal area foodgrains of which parti· culars were given in the schedule attached thereto. The appellant Committee replied that they would not be entitled to the refund unless they filed with their application 'the receipts of duty is· sued by the Committee at the time when it was paid on the impor- tation of the said foodgrains. It may be mentioned that it was not the case of the Committee in the said reply that the said goods were not exported by respondents 1 and 2 by rail or that they were not the same goods which were impor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.