9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legislative Powers of the State 2. Competence of the Municipality to Exempt Octroi Duty 3. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legislative Powers of the State: The Full Bench of the High Court rejected the petition on the grounds that the State Government is entitled under Section 62-A of Punjab Act, 48/1953, to direct the Municipal Committee to impose octroi duty. The Court found that the legislative powers of the State cannot be questioned even if the municipality errs in imposing the Octroi Duty. Section 62-A empowers the State Government to require a Municipal Committee to impose or modify any tax mentioned in Section 61. The State Government's action in confirming the resolution to levy octroi duty was in conformity with its powers under Section 70(2)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The plea of estoppel is not available against the State in the exercise of its legislative or statutory functions. The Government has the authority to direct the Municipality to collect the Octroi Tax if the Municipality fails to take action by itself under Section 60(A)(3). 2. Competence of the Municipality to Exempt Octroi Duty: The Court held that the Municipal Committee had no authority to exempt the Fateh Market from the levy of Octroi Duty. Any resolution or notification by the Municipal Committee exempting the market from octroi duty would be ultra vires of its powers. When a public authority acts beyond the scope of its authority, the plea of estoppel is not available to prevent the authority from acting according to law. It is in the public interest that no such plea should be allowed. The Municipal Committee's representation that no octroi duty will be levied was beyond its authority, and thus, it cannot be enforced. 3. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The High Court rejected the plea of promissory estoppel on several grounds: - The petitioners were not the original purchasers of the plots in Fateh Mandi. - No sale-deed was executed by the Municipal Committee in favor of the original purchasers undertaking that no octroi duty will be levied. - There was no allegation that the original purchasers would not have purchased the plots if the condition about immunity from payment of Octroi had not been there. The Court further elaborated that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against the Government in the exercise of its legislative, sovereign, or executive powers. The plea of estoppel is not available against the Government for questioning the validity of the impugned Government order. The Government cannot be estopped from discharging its functions under the law. The doctrine of ultra vires will come into operation when an officer acts outside the scope of his authority, and the Government cannot be held bound by such unauthorized acts. The Court also discussed the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in various contexts, emphasizing that a public authority cannot be estopped from exercising its statutory powers for the public good. The doctrine cannot be used to prevent the Government from acting in discharge of its duty under the law. The Court referred to several cases, including Indo-Afghan Agencies, Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co., and Turner Morrison Co. Ltd., to illustrate the limitations and applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, and the Court upheld the validity of the Government's order directing the levy of octroi duty. The representation made by the Municipal Committee was beyond its authority, and the Government's action was in exercise of its statutory duty. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was not applicable against the Government in this case.
|
