LexTHE DHARANGADRA CHEMICAL WORKS versus DHARANGADHRA MUNICIPALITY & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
757 THE DHARANGADllRA CHEMICAL WORKS v, DllARANGADllRA MUNICIPALITY ,& ANOT!IER. SEPTEMBER 3, 19$5 Bom)>ay Distrii:t l!unicipalii:.ies Act 190). sections 69, 61 1>n<! «>2. Gujara~ Muo.icipaliti .. s 1\ct, 1963 section 279. 'file s.aurashtra Termina.1 T"" ""d 9ctr.oi Oi;4irnt'!Ce 1949 & The DharaQga.dhra l:!un1- A B cipalil:y .octrgi Rules and Octwi ))yia-Ja>;p, Ru!l.e 3 at)d ·Bye~law :3. C Dharangacihra !1uni<Cipa1Hy - !&YY 1mci collection 9t octcoi duty - W)).etner legal .and YaUd; Repeal by implicatio)'.! - Mhe11 ,a\(ises - Effect 9f. The Saur/l.Sl'ltra l'!!~Wil Tax .and Pct~oi Ordina)'.!!'!! ~o.. ~? of 1949 !las promulg$t!!d im4 brQ!lgbt .i11to f9rC!! ·:witl'l .ej'fect .tll'l,Jlll 3l .• ll.Hl49, t9 ""8i>le 1:1.le l)t.e~ GQyempent to 1.,vy .. and C9li.,!!t octr9,I. 4'1t:Y in sP"ciHe<i citie• l'JJ.d t\lW!IS ,"11<1 Pther lfl<:!li ar~ D 9f ·!:!!" Sµt!' and t9 P!ilis 9n tjie ,cluty 139 !!Ollei;~ to p)lose dti.,.s ii arui tOWll'I, until Mµnicipaliti!'s t\:h..,:c!!iu li!!r!' C9!ll?t.i,tutaj <Jajer •the Bolllbay District Mµni(!ipslities /\ct, :l90.l and !:h9.S!i! JMllnl.- cipaUties made theii:: own ~s .and by.e.:. la>;p l'llil.l>.liDg t)lem ~ levy and col.lect octroi. Section 3 of the .0rdj,nance .emp<:>wer.e.d the State GovernmeJlt to impose .octroi <iuty i.n towns and .clt.ies Bj>E)c;l.- f ied in ,S.,hedule I thereto, a.nd tl'le town .9f Ubsr8J,18lld)lra eae •to F he included therein suJ>.s!'quep,l:ly under a lllltifi!!!ltA.9n !'1:$. ,etfei;J: from 26.12,49. · The respondent-11w)1.cipj!lity by its ),leso1<>ti9n liated 30.3.53 enhanced the prev,.iling raie of .octroi duty hY .5o% @.tb9ut comr lying with the provisions 9f sectiQns .60 to 62 t>f ,Cllap,ter VH .of G the Bombay District Municipalities Act, 190.l. The appe;I.la11t challeQged the enhancement in the rate of octroi duty by filing a writ petition, and also filed a suit for refund of the excess amount recovered from it for the pei::iod endiQg .Sept/,m)ie.r 30, · 1961. The High Court dismissed the petition and up)leld .the enhancement, taking the view that while enhancing the !'ate .of H A c )) H 158 SUPR!i:ME COURT REPORTS [1985j SUPP.2 s.c.R. octroi, the Respondent-Municipality had followed the procedure prescribed by the Bombay Act for imposing the octroi and that the enhanced imposition was not under Ordinance No. 47 of 1949. On appeal, this Court held that the enhanced imposition of duty by the Respondent-Municipality was illegal as the mandatory provisions of sections 60 to 62 of the Bombay Act, had neither been complied with or could the enhanced levy be justified under Ordinance No. 47 of. 1949, because the State Government alone had the power thereunder to impose the duty or prescribe its rate and not the Respondent-Municipality. To get over the effect of this Court's decision a validating Act being Gujarat Act No. 6 of 1978 was passed whereunder the imposition of octroi levy and collec- tion thereof prior to 30.4.65 was validated. During the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, the Respondent-Municipality proceeded to frame its own octroi Rules and Bye-laws under the Bombay Act after COfilPlying with all the procedural steps. The Respondent-Municipality passed a Reso- lution on 17 .12. 63 approving the draft Rules and Bye-laws. The Divisional Commissioner sanctioned the draft Rules and Bye-laws. However, on March 10, 1965 the State Government issued a Corri- gendum to the sanction that had already been accorded with a view to rectify certain printing or typographical errors that had come to the notice of the Respondent-Municipality. Thereafter, the Respondent-Municipality passed a General Board Resolution dated 29.3.1965 resolving to bring into force these Rules and Bye-laws called: "The Dharangadhra Municipality Octroi Rules and Octroi Bye Laws" with effect from 1.5.65, and the requisite Notification was published. By the aforesaid Octroi Rules and Bye-laws, 1965 the Respondent-Municipality increased the octroi rates by .12.1/2% on all the goods brought within the Municipal limits of Dharangadhra and also made some changes in the classification of goods so brought in; and issued bills of octroi payable every month. Feeling aggrieved by this action of the Respondent-Municipality, the Appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the levy of octro1 at the enhanced rate, which was dismissed~ In the appea.i.. lo this Court it was con.tended on beha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.