LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

PURI MUNICIPAL COUNSEL AND ORS. versus INDIAN TOBACCO CO. LTD.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 08-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

PURI MUNICIPAL COUNSEL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
INDIAN TOBACCO CO. LTD. 
NOVEMBER 8, 1995 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, .J.J.j 
B 
01issa Municipal Act, 1950/Pwi Octroi Bye-laws, 1971 : 
Ss.131( I) (KK), 388(3)/Bye-lawl 1(2)-0ctroi tax-Levy of on marine 
fish and prawns at ent1y points-Evasion of tax-Municipality levying tax on C 
11011-fishennen fou11d i11 possession of"fish a11d praw11s within municipal 
area-Held, a person merely in possession of such items within municipal 
area can11ot be presumed to be an evader because he may not have caused 
the enfly and hence be not an evader. 
Words and Phrases : 
Word 'evasion' occurring in Bye-Jaw Jl(2) 
1971-Meaning of-Explained. 
D 
of Pwi Octroi Bye-Laws 
The appellant, Puri Municipality, imposed Octroi tax on marine fish E 
and prawns found in possession of non-fisherman and brought within the 
municipal limit without payment of Octroi tax thereon at the entry point. 
The respondent-company, challenged the action of the Municipality by 
filing a writ petition before the High Court. The Municipality contended 
that under bye-law 11(2) of the Puri Octroi Bye-laws, 1971, it could proceed 
against the possessors of fish or prawns, including exporters of the items, 
F 
on the premise of non-payment of Octroi tax. The High Court rejected the 
plea of the Municipality and allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the 
Municipality filed the appeal by special leave. 
On the question : Whether the taxing provmons of the Orissa G 
Municipal Act, 1950 and the Puri Octroi Bye-laws, 1971 permitted the Puri 
Municipal Council to charge Octroi tax on a nonΒ· fisherman merely found 
in possession of fish and prawns within the municipal area or while taking 
them out through exit points or Octroi posts. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
831 
H 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1.1. The word 'evasion' when seen married to the expression 
B 
'octroi tax', is conceivably a wrong committed by the person bringing goods 
within municipal limits, since it is an entry tax, The person bringing the 
goods without payment of Octroi is the evader and can certainly be brought 
within the grip of Bye-law 11 (2) of the Puri Octroi Bye-laws, 1971. A person 
merely in possession of such goods within a municipal area cannot be 
brought within the ambit of bye-law 11 (2) raising a presumption that he 
is an evader because he may not have caused the entry and hence be not 
an evader. (833-E] 
1.2. If the Municipality was not in a positfon to put up Octroi posts 
C at every conceivable point alongside the sea shore, it is the concern of the 
municipality and this aspect does not relate to the subject. On such pleas, 
the tax cannot be allowed to assume the character of a possessory tax or 
an exit tax. That would be against the text and content of the taxing 
provisions and their culpable part. (833-G, F] 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 199 of 
1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.78 of the Orissa High 
,-
Court in O.J.C. No. 801of1977. 
E 
Ms: Uma Mehta Jain, (Ms. Mana Chakraborty) for M/s. Bagga 
Associates Advs. for the Appellants. 
Rajan Narain for JBD & Co., Raj Kr. Mehta, Vinoo Bhagat, (NP) 
for the Respondents. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The famous city of Puri in the State of Orissa, is a municipality under 
the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. It's limits extends upto the sea \Vaters, on 
the side of the Bay of Bengal. Fish and prawn caught by fishermen from 
the sea have all along been brought within the municipal limit, sometimes 
G through the nearest Octroi checkpost on payment of Octroi and more often 
without adopting lhat course. The fish and prawn are then taken to the 
market by fishermen where they are sold and bought by non-fishermen for 
local consumption or for export lo other destinations. In the latter course, 
the goods inevitably arc transported and have to pass out through Octroi 
checkposts. The dispute between the parties i.e. the Puri Municipal Coun-
H cil and its officers on the one side and the Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. 
PURI MUN!CIP AL COUNCIL v. INDIAN. TOBACCO CO.LTD. 
833 
on the other, as projected before the High Court in writ proceedings A 
centered around the question whether the taxing provisions of the Orissa 
Municipal Act and the bye-laws made thereunder, permitted the Puri 
Municipal Council to charge octroi tax on a non-fishermen merely found 
in possession of fish and prawn w

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