9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Municipal Octroi Rules and Bye-laws, 1965 due to lack of exemption from the Saurashtra Terminal Tax and Octroi Ordinance No. 47 of 1949. 2. Effect of the repeal of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 by the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 on the Municipal Octroi Rules and Bye-laws, 1965. 3. Validity of the corrigendum issued by the Gujarat Government on 10.3.1965. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the Municipal Octroi Rules and Bye-laws, 1965 due to lack of exemption from the Saurashtra Terminal Tax and Octroi Ordinance No. 47 of 1949 The appellant contended that since the exemption from the operation of the Octroi Ordinance No. 47 of 1949 was not granted by the State Government, the Municipal Octroi Rules and Bye-laws, 1965 could not come into force, rendering the levy at the enhanced rate illegal. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the principle of implied repeal applies. The Court noted that both the Ordinance and the Municipal Rules dealt with the same subject matter-levy and collection of octroi duty. When two pieces of legislation are so inconsistent that they cannot operate simultaneously, the later enactment impliedly repeals the former. The Court emphasized that the Ordinance was a stop-gap measure intended to cease operation once municipalities enacted their own rules. Therefore, the Municipal Rules and Bye-laws, 1965, validly made and brought into force, impliedly repealed the earlier Government Rules under the Ordinance. Issue 2: Effect of the repeal of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 by the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 on the Municipal Octroi Rules and Bye-laws, 1965 The appellant argued that since the Bombay Act was repealed by the Gujarat Act with effect from 1.1.1965, and the Octroi Rules and Bye-laws were not in force immediately before this date, they were not saved under the Gujarat Act. The Court rejected this contention, explaining that the Divisional Commissioner's order sanctioning the Rules and Bye-laws, dated 22.4.1964, was saved under clause (vi) of sub-s. (2) of s. 279 of the Gujarat Act, which preserved any order in force immediately before the commencement of the Gujarat Act. The Court further clarified that the order of sanction and the Rules and Bye-laws sanctioned thereby are part and parcel of a single instrument, thus saved in their entirety. Additionally, the Court referenced s. 7(b) of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which preserves "anything duly done" under the repealed enactment, encompassing the Rules and Bye-laws. Issue 3: Validity of the corrigendum issued by the Gujarat Government on 10.3.1965 The appellant contended that the corrigendum issued by the Gujarat Government on 10.3.1965 was not merely a correction of typographical errors but amounted to a modification of the Rules and Bye-laws without following the required procedure. The Court found no merit in this contention, noting that the corrigendum was issued to rectify typographical errors and inadvertent omissions in the typed copies of the Rules and Bye-laws forwarded to the Divisional Commissioner. The High Court had also rejected this contention, holding that even if the corrigendum amounted to a modification, it was within the powers of the Government. Therefore, the Court dismissed this contention. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, rejecting all three contentions raised by the appellant. The Municipal Octroi Rules and Bye-laws, 1965 were held to be valid and enforceable, with the enhanced levy of octroi duty upheld. The Court found no substance in the arguments regarding the lack of exemption from the Ordinance, the effect of the repeal of the Bombay Act, and the validity of the corrigendum. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
