VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF KANHAN PIPRI versus STANDING COMMITTEE, ZILA PARISHAD, NAGPUR, AND ORS.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 17-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

213 
A 
VILLAGE PANCBAYAT OF KANHAN PIPRI 
B 
v. 
STANDING COMMITTEE; ZILA PARISHAD, NAGPUR, 
AND ORS. 
August 17, 1967 
[J. c. SHAH, s. M. Suau AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.J 
Bombay Village Panchayat Act 1958 (Bombay Act 3 of 1958), 
s. 124(5)-Maharashtra Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules 1960, 
'l'I', 
3, 4, 5, 21, 22-Levy of octroi by Panchayat under r. 22-Procedure 
under rr. 3 & 4 followed-Collection of octroi commenced without 
prior approval of octroi limits under r. 21 by Collector-such collection 
c whether valid-subsequent approval by collector 
whether vali· 
dates collection made earlier-Appeal under r. 124(5)-Limitation-
Rule 5 providing for appeal against levy of octroi within 60 days of 
notice under r. 4-Scope and validity of r. 5. 
The appellant Panchayat levied octroi duty on goods coming 
within its limits. by following the procedure laid down in rr. 3 and 4 
of the Maharashtra V.illage Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules 1960. 
Although the resolution finally levying octroi was passed on Feb-
D ruary 25, 1963 and the octroi limits were fixed by resolution dated 
March 17. 1963 the approval of the Collector to the octroi limits as 
required by r. 21 was not obtained till January 14. 1964. When the 
Panchayat began collecting octroi on April 1, 1963 the respondent 
company appealed under s. 124(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayat 
Act, 1958 to the Panchayat Samiti. The appeal was rejected as it 
was considered time-barred under r. 5 of the Taxes & Fees Rules 
JD which required an appeal under s. 124(5) of the Act to be filed with-
in 60 days of the publication oif the notice under r. 4. On further a1>-
peal the Standing Committee, Zila Pa~ishad, Nagpur decided in 
favour of the respondent company on the ground that the Panchayat 
had not complied wjth r. 21. The Panchayat filed· a writ petition 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld the find-
ing of the Standing Committee as to the effect oif non-compli.ance 
with r. 21. It however further held that r. 5 in requiring all appeals 
p under s. 124(5) of the Act to be filed within 60 days of the publica-
tion of the notice under s. 4 was arbitrary and destructive of the 
right of appeal and therefore ul!Ta vires. The Panchayat appealed to 
this Court. 
Held: (i) Octroi can be validly levied under r. 22 after follow-
ing the procedure in rr. 3 and 4 Rule 3 deals only with (i) selection 
of the tax and (ii) the rate at which it is to be levied. Rule 4 deals 
G with final publication oJ the notice levying octro!. The levy of octroi 
under r. 22 read with rr. 3 and 4 does not require prior approv'!l to 
the octroi limits by the CollectCJr under r. 21. r219D-H; 220A-Cl. 
(ii) However tlie octroi cannnot be validly collected before the 
octroii limits are approved by the Collector under r. 21. Collections 
made earlier cannot be regularised by subsequent approval. The 
plea on behalf of the appellant that the approval of the Collector on 
B January 14, 1964 should relate back to April l, 1963 could not be ac-
cepted. [220 !}-E]. 
· 
(iii) Rule 5 is not invalid as it does not apply to all appeals 
under s. 124(5). The rule follows rr. 3 and 4 and is headed "appeal 
against levy of any ·tax or fee," and the period of sixty days of lilni-
tation commences from the date of the publication of the notice 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968] 1 s.c.R. 
under r. 4 i.e. the notice following the decision of a Panchayat to A 
levy any tax or fee. This date shows that r. 5 is dea)ing only with 
appeals against levy Qf any tax and not with the assessment or im-
position of a tax or any further appeals to the Panchayat Samiti 
under s. 124('5). In its context and setting the heading of r. 5 brings 
out the scoPe of the rule. f220 F-Hl. 
Accordingly the appeal of the company to the Samiti was wrong-
ly dismissed as time-barred. It followed from this that the Standing B 
COIIDmlittee was entitled to deal with the appeal on merits. [220 HJ. 
QvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1375 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated Octo.ber 22, 1965 
of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Special Civil Appli-
c 
cation No. 355 of 1964. 
M. N. Phadke and Naunit Lal, for the appellant. 
B. R. Agarwala and S. B. Nerkar, for respondent No. I. 
A. K. Sen, A. S. Bobde, G. L. Sanghi, and 0. C. Mathur, for D 
respondent No. 2. 
M. S. K. Sastri, R. N. Sachthey, S. P. Nayar for R. H. Dhebar, 
for respondent No. 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikrl, J.

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