1995 (3) TMI 482 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the 1881 Notification for collection of octroi.
2. Supersession or implied repeal of the 1881 Notification by subsequent notifications.
3. Legal objections to the collection of octroi under the 1963 Octroi Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the 1881 Notification for Collection of Octroi:
The primary issue was whether the 1881 Notification allowed the appellant to collect octroi duties at the rates specified in the 1963 Octroi Rules. The respondents argued that the 1881 Notification only permitted collection at the rates and on the articles prevailing on 12th March 1881. However, the court found that the expression "for the time being" in the notification was intended to allow collection at rates and on articles as they changed over time. The court supported this interpretation by referencing contemporary government records and long-standing practices, concluding that the 1881 Notification was meant to accommodate changes in rates and articles subject to octroi.

2. Supersession or Implied Repeal of the 1881 Notification:
The respondents contended that the 1881 Notification was superseded by the notifications issued on 17th June 1918 or was impliedly repealed. The court examined the language and context of the 1918 Notifications and determined that Notification No. 4160 did not deal with octroi duties and thus did not supersede the 1881 Notification regarding octroi. However, Notification No. 4162, which specifically dealt with octroi duties, was found to have impliedly repealed the 1881 Notification. Despite this, the court noted that the 1918 Notifications had not been acted upon and had effectively become a "dead letter" due to long disuse, applying the doctrine of desuetude. Consequently, the 1881 Notification remained effective.

3. Legal Objections to the Collection of Octroi under the 1963 Octroi Rules:
The respondents raised several legal objections:
- Lack of Agreement: The respondents argued that no agreement was entered into after the 1963 Octroi Rules were framed. The court found that the original agreement from 1881 was sufficient and had been renewed periodically, thus no new agreement was necessary.
- Impermissible Delegation: The respondents claimed that allowing changes in octroi rates and articles constituted an impermissible delegation of legislative power. The court rejected this argument, citing precedents that permitted such delegation when the legislative policy was clear.
- Non-compliance with Section 62 of the Cantonments Act, 1924: The respondents contended that the procedure for inviting objections, as required by Section 62, was not followed. The court clarified that Section 62 applied only to the imposition of new taxes, not to changes in the rates of existing taxes. Thus, the enhancement of octroi rates in 1963 did not require compliance with Section 62.

Conclusion:
The court held that the 1881 Notification permitted the appellant to collect octroi duties at the rates specified in the 1963 Octroi Rules. The 1918 Notifications, which could have superseded the 1881 Notification, were not acted upon and had become obsolete. The legal objections raised by the respondents were dismissed, and the collection of octroi under the 1963 Rules was deemed valid. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and dismissing the writ petitions filed by the respondents.