LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BARODA versus BABUBHAI HIMATLAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF TI-IE CITY OF BARODA
v.
BABUBHAI HIMATLAL
AUGUST 16, 1989
[G.L. OZA AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.]
The Bombay Provincial Corporations Act, 1949: Sections 147
and 466( l)(A)(f) and Standing Order No. 3-Payment of supervision
fee by transporter-Whether reasonable-Optional to transporter-
A voidance of claiming refund on octroi duty-Standing Order held
valid, legal and enforceable.
The respondent who was carrying on the business of transporting
goods challenged before the High Court the imposition of supervision
fee levied under Standing Order No. 3 on the goods in transit through
the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Baroda. Before the framing
D of Standing Order No. 3, a transporter was required to pay octroi at the
point of entry in the city and claim refund thereof at the point of exit
after satisfying the authority that the goods which had entered were
being taken out. Standing Order No. 3 framed under section
466(I)(A)(O read with section 147 of the Bombay Provincial Corpora-
tions Act 1949, provided that when a transporter entered into the cor-
E poration limits with goods which were only in transit, he could on
payment of supervision fee carry the goods through the corporation
limits under the supervision of the staff of the Corporation without
payment of octroi at the point of entry.
I
~.
The High Court held Standing Order No. 3 as illegal and without
F
the authority of law. The High Court observed that under section
""""
466(I)(A)(t) the Commissioner had the authority to frame standing
orders only in respect of goods on which octroi was payable and as
octroi was not payable on the goods which were in transit, no standing
orders could be framed under the Section. The High Court further held
that quid pro quo was not satisfied as no service was rendered to the
G
transporter.
I·
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that
~
the levy of supervision fee was optional; the procedure under Standing
Order No. 3 was introduced to avoid hardship to the transporter; it was
open to him to follow the normal procedure of paying the octroi and
H
claiming refund; the requirement of quid pro quo was in substance
862
~
j
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF THE CITY OF BARODA v. BABUBHAI 863
1
-~
satisfied, and the fee was charged only to facilitate the transporter in
A
carrying the goods in transit.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
~
HELD: (1) The procedure under Standing Order No. 3 is not
\
compulsory and it is the option of the transporter to take advantage of B
this Standing Order if he so chooses otherwise follow normal procedure
of payment of octroi and claiming refund. [868H-869A]
ill
'(' ,._.
(2) Clause (f) of section 466(I)(A) contemplates that the Commis-
sioner may by standing order prescribed the procedure for the goods
which ale introduced iu the city limits, for immediate exportation aud c
.( f
also the fees which could be charged. It is clear that this provision which
.. ,
"
_,
confers the authority on the Commissioner to frame standing orders
does not talk of goods on which octroi is payable. The Commissioner
therefore had the authority under section 466, and the Standing Orders
~
have been framed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
that section. [867D-E; 8690]
D
(3) It appears that while taking the view that the levy could not be
--·;.
~
justified under Entry 52 of the State List which authorises the State
"
Legislature to impose a tax on entry of goods into a local area, the High
Court was examining the fees prescribed as a tax, and it was on that
•
basis that the High Court took the view that no such tax could be levied
E
'
on goods on which no octroi was payable. But, as it is not a tax, the
imposition could not be said to be bad on the ground that the State
Legislature had no authority to impose it. [869E-870A]
~-
(4) In order to establish a quid pro quo concept it is not necessary
to establish exactly that the amount collected is spent ~n the services
F
rendered. [872A]
Sourthern Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Trichur & Ors. etc. v.
State of Kera/a & Ors. etc., [1982] l SCR 519 and Sreenivasa General
If
Traders & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., [1983] 3 SCR 843,
referred to.
G
~?
' f
(5) So far as the charging of supervision fee is concerned, it
..
reasonably appears to be a charge for the services rendered. The High
Court was, therefore, not right inExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.