LexTHE CANTONMENT BOARD, SECUNDERABAD versus G. VENKETRAM REDDY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
T{-IE CANTONMENT BOARD, SECUNDERABAD
v.
G. VENKETRAM REDDY AND ORS.
MARCH 22, 1995
B
[R.M. SAHAI AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]
Cantonment Act, 1924:
S.6o-Municipal Corporation established under the Act-Whether
C comes within the purview of 'any Municipalitj in the State'-Whether could
exercise power to levy octroi-Held: Yes.
Constitution of Indi4, 1950:
Articles 243 P, 243-Q-Meaning of 'Municipalities'-Expression
D 'Municipality in the State'-to be read in a broad and larger sens~To include
Corporation.
The jurisdiction and power of the Cantonment Board of
Secunderabad to levy and collect octroi was challenged before the High
Court, and the Single Judge upheld the challenge as there was no
E machinery provided for the assessment of octroi. It was held that the
provision for appeal against any imposition under S.84 of the Cantonment
· Act, 1924 did not remove the infirmity as in absence of any provision for
assessment the right of appeal was illusory and non-existent.
In appeal the Division Bench held that S.60 of the Act empowered
F the Board to levy any tax, but since no octroi was levied by any
Municipality in the State and it was levied only by the Corporation of
Hyderabad which could not be held to be a Municipality, the Board could
not impose any octroi in exercise of its power under S.69 of the Act. Hence
this appeal by the Board.
G
Allowing the appeal, this Court.
· HELD: 1. The word 'Municipality' has a wide connotation. The
Constitution also understands it in broad sense. Chapter (IX- A) deals
with the Municipality. Clause (e) of Article243-P defines Municipality. Art.
H 243-Q also indicates that a Corporation or a Municipal Council or Nagai'
938
+
)
\-
~
,--t
C. BOARD v. G.V. REDDY
939
Panchayat is constituted on strength of population and .the area or place A
where it is constituted namely rural or urban. But all the three are deemed
to be municipality. A Municipal Corporation with a larger area is as much
a municipality as a council with smaller area. The expression,
'Municipality in the State' thus has to be read in broad and larger sense.
The Hyderabad Corporation which came into existence in 1956 is as much B
municipality as any other municipality in the State. Since Corporation is
imposing octroi the Board could in exercise of power under Section 60 levy
octroi. (940-H, 941-D-E]
2. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The case is
remitted back to the Division Bench to restore the appeal to its original C
number and decide the same in accordance with law. (941-EJ
Webster's New Dictionary; and Black's Law Dictionary, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 774 of
1986.
D
From the Judgment and Order 12.12.85 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in W.A. No. 627 of 1977.
S. Markandeya, H.P. Sharma, A.Singh and Ms. C. Markandeya for
the Appellant.
E
Y.P. Rao, Adv. (NP) for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is F
whether a Municipal Corporation established under an Act is, 'any
Municipality in the State' within the meaning of Section 60 of the Canton-
ment Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').
It is the answer to this question that would determine the jurisdiction
and power of the Cantonment Board of Secunderabad (in brief 'the G
Board') to levy and collect octroi on substitute of ghee and all ~
of
food and drinks brought inside the cantonment for use, cons~10n and
sale. The challenge to the levy was upheld by the learned Single Judge as
there was no machinery provided for the 'assessment' of octroi. It was held
that the provision for appeal against any imposition under Section 84 of H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1995] 2 S.C.R.
A the Act did not remove the infirmity as in absence of any provision for
asses~ment the right of appeal was illusory and non-existent. In appeal filed
by the Board before the Division Bench under Letters Patent the order of
the learned Single Judge was maintained as· there was no power to levy any
octroi. It was held that Section 6Q of the Act empowered the Board to levy
. any tax which under any enactmi;nt for the time being in force could be
B imposed in any Municipality in the· State. But since no octroi was levied by
any Municipality in the State and it was levied only by the Corporation of
Hyderabad which could not be held to be Municipality the Board could
not imposeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.