THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR CITY OF PUNE AND ANR. versus BHARAT FORGE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 10-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR 
CITY OF PUNE AND ANR. 
v. 
BHARAT FORGE CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
lvlARCfl 10, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MUJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Doctrine of desuetude-Disuse of a statute for a long duration; and 
contrary practice in use-The statute becomes a dead letter may be taken as 
C replaced. 
· 
Cantonment Act, 1910-Ss.60-62-0ctroi Rules 1963-Whether 1881 
resolution pennitted collection of octroi duties at the rates specified in Octroi 
Rules of 1963-Whether any obstacle in law in allowing the same--Held.· No. 
D 
Wordr & Phrases : Contemporanea expositio'-Meaning of. 
The Government of Bombay, by its Resolutfoo adopted on 26.li1881 
approved the levy of Octroi in the Cantonment on the same articles and 
at the same rate as in Poona City and it approved the proposal to divide 
E the proceeds on certain terms. The Government of India conveyed its 
sanction to the levy of Octroi in the Cantonment and issued notification. 
The Municipality started collection of Octroi duties for the Cantonment 
from that year itsrlf. 
After the Cantonment Act 1910 came into force, the Cantonment 
F wanted a new method of apportionment as it thought that the agreement 
that existed was unjust. The State Government did not agree and the 
disagreement was conveyed to the Cantonment. The Municipality 
proposed to revise its Schedule ef Octroi Rules in 1917 by enhancing the 
same, which was opposed by the Cantonment Committee. The Government 
G approved the reVised Octroi Schedule. This order required the General 
Officer Commanding of the Cantonment to be informed that the Govern-
ment saw no reason to modify its earlier decisioa. 
-H 
Io 1963 new Octroi Rules were framed by the appellant which en-
~anced the rates of Octroi and included new articles in the schedule and 
it started collecting octroi accordingly form all concerned. The respoo-
716 
+ 
MUN. CORPN. FOR CITY OFPUNE v. BHARAT FORGE CO. LTQ. 717 
~ 
dents filed writ petitions challenging the legality of the collection of the A 
octroi made as per the 1963 Schedule to the Octroi Rules framed by the 
appellant, before High Court. The Respondents contended that the 1881 
Notification did not permit the collection and even i~ factually the· Notifica-
tion were to so permit, the appellants could not have done so in law. The 
High Court accepted both the contentions and allowed the writ petitions. B 
r 
Hence these present appeals. 
, -
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
r 
HELD: 1. The 1881 Notification was meant to impose Octroi duties 
1 
not only at the rates prevailing when the Notification was i5$Ued nor was c 
confined to the articles on which octroi.was then leviable, but these could 
be collected at th~.rates..Jrigher than those prevailing at the time of issuance 
-of the Notification, or could be le-ried on articles then not subject to octroi. 
(725-D-E] 
2. It would not be a correct reading of Notification No. 4160 of ~7th D 
June, 1918 to hold that it .supersede t~e Notification of 12th March, 1881 
in its entirety. 'fhe supersession has to be confined to taxes mentioned in 
Notification No. 4160, Octroi being not one of these taxes, so the notifica· 
tion did not supersede 1881 Notification qua octroi. This conclusion 
receives support from what has been stated in Notification No. 4162of17th E 
June, 1918 whicli has specifically _dealt with imposition of octroi duties and 
trade registration fees. (726-F] 
3. Notification No. 4162 which is the subject of imposition of octroi 
duties has been supplemented by Notification No. 4163 dealing with the 
assessment, collection and recovery of octroi duties. This aspect has been F 
~;' 
dealt with by section 15(2) of the Cantonment Act, 1910; the imposition 
being covered by Sub- section (1) of this section. These Notifications were 
issued with the previous sanction of the Governor-General in Council, and 
by issuing Notifications No. 4162 and 4163, the issuing authority did 
impliedly repeal Notification of 1881 dealing with octroi. (726-H, 727-A] 
G 
. 
. 
. 4. The Notification of June 1918 relating to Octroi duties were not 
acted upon, and so, it would not be justified in allowing the Local Govern· 
ment, or even the Governor-in-Council, to undo a notification issued with 
the previous sanction of the Governor-General. The only legal way in which 
Notifications No. 4162 and 4163 could have been rescinded was by issuance H 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A of another Notification in 

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