RAM KRISHNA RAMNATH AGARWAL OF KAMPTEE versus SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KAMP TEE.

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 15 · Decided: 14-03-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA, M. PATANJALI SASTRI, SIR SYED FAZL ALI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
RAM KRISHNA RAMNATH AGARWAL 
OF KAMPTEE 
v. 
SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, 
KAMP TEE. 
UNION OF INDIA AND GOVERNMENT OF 
15 
~. 
MAD HY A PRADESH : INTERVENERS. 
, 
[SHRI HARILAL KANIA C.J., SAIYID FAZL ALI, 
PATANJALI SASTRI, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MuKHERJEA, and S.R. DAS JJ.] 
Govl!rnment of India Act, 1985, ss. 100, 148, 292; Sch. VII 
List I, Entry 45; List II, Entry 49-0entral Exciieli and Salt Act 
(I of 1944), SS. 2, a-Central Provinces Municipalities Act (II of 
1922), s. 66 (1) (e)-I mport of tobacco within municipality for manu· 
faoturing bidis-Tobaoco liable to Central excise duty-Levy of 
ootroi duty by municipality-Legality. 
Section 66 (1) (e) of the Central Provinces Municipalities Act, 
1922, empowered municipalities within the Province to levy an 
octroi duty on goods brought within their .limits· for sale, con· 
su.mption or use within those limits. Section 3 ·of the Centr&l 
Excises and S&lt Act, 1944, an Act of the Central Legislature,. pro-
vided that there shall be levied and. collected duties of excise on 
all excisable goods other than salt which were produced or manu· 
factured in British India, and included tbbacco in the list 
of excisable goods. The question being whether a municipality 
situated in the Central Pro·•inces could levy octroi duty on 
tobacco brought within its limits for the purpose of manufactur· 
ing bidis, in view of the exclusive power of the Central Govern· 
ment to levy excise duty under Entry 45 of List I of the Seventh 
Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, and the provisions 
of s. 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act: 
Held, that excise .duty and octroi were taxes essentially diff· 
erent in their nature and tho power of the Province to levy octroi 
was not inconsistent with the power of the Centre to levy excise 
duty on the same goods, and a municipality could therefore validly 
levy an octroi duty on such tobacco under s. 66(1)(e) of the 
Central Provinces Municipalities Act of 1922. 
Held further, that there was nothing in the Central Excises 
and Salt Act or its provisions contrary to the provisions of 
s. 66(1) (e) of the Central Provinces .Municipalities Act or to the 
levy of octroi duty under the same and s. 143 of the Government 
of India Act, therefore, preserved the right of the municipality to 
levy octroi duty under the Act of 1922. 
Province of Madras v. Boddu Paidanna and Sons (1942) Ji'.C.R. 
90; Governor-General in Council v. Province of Madras (1942] F.C.R 
129, In re the Central Provinces and Berar Act No. XIV of 1938, 
8 
1950 
March 14 
•
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1950] 
.. 
1950 
Ram Krisltna 
[1939] F.C.R. 80, Mi,. Kishori Shetty v. The King [1949) F.C.R. 
650 referred to. 
Administrator, Laho1'e Municipality v. Daulat Ram [1942] 
Ramnatl• 
F.0.R. 31 distinguished. 
Agarwal of 
Kamptce 
Judgment of the High Court of Nagpur affirmed. 
v. 
APPEAL from the High Court of Judicature at Nag-
Srmtary, Mun;. pur: Case No. III of 1948. 
cipal Comn1ittee, 
Kampt« 
This was an appeal from a judgment and order of 
Kanf4 C.J. 
the High Court of Nagpur (Mis .. Civil No.158 of 1946) 
dated 9th April, 1948, made on a reference under 
s. 83 (2) of the Central Provinces Municipalities Act 
(II of 1922) by the Extra Assistant Commissioner, 
Nagpur. The facts of the case and the, arguments of 
counsel appear in the judgment. 
T.J. Kedar and B. B. Tawakley (Sri Narain AndJey 
with them) for the appellant. 
Lobo, for the respondent. 
M. 
0. 
Setalvad, 
Attorney-General 
of 
India, 
(8. M. Sikri with him) for the Union of India. 
1950. March, 14. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
KANIA C. J.-This is an appeal from the judgment 
and order of the High Court at Nagpur, made on a 
reference under Section 83 (2) of the Central Provinces 
Municipalities Act II of 1922, by the Extra Assistant 
Commissioner, Nagpur. The appellant is a trader in 
Kamptee who manufactures bidis. On the 30th of 
November, 1945, he brought to Kamptee from outside 
tobacco to make bidis. A declaration form signed on 
his behalf stated that the 254 bags of tobacco liable to 
octroi duty, which had that day arrived at octroi post 
No. 3, had been brought for use and consumption 
within the limits of the Municipality. He however 
put on record his protest against the recovery o'f the 
duty which was fixed at Rs. 1,128-2-0. Against the 
order claiming the amount, the appellant filed an 
appeal to the Extra Assistant Commissioner with , 
revenu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.