9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of octroi on goods in transit. 2. Entitlement to refund of octroi deposited on exported goods. 3. Interpretation of relevant rules and provisions regarding octroi and refunds. Detailed Analysis: Legality of Octroi on Goods in Transit: The petitioner, a partnership firm dealing in bailing hoops and other commodities, sought a writ of mandamus against the Municipal Council, asking it to forbear from claiming octroi on goods in transit from one octroi limit to another, which are neither consumed nor used within the municipal area. The petitioner also sought a refund of the tax illegally collected, amounting to Rs. 809.59. Entitlement to Refund of Octroi Deposited on Exported Goods: The petitioner imported several consignments within the octroi limits and deposited them in the bonded warehouse maintained by the Council. These goods were later exported after following all required formalities and depositing the octroi amount as per the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1968. The petitioner applied for a refund of the octroi deposited, but the Council rejected the claim, stating that the goods had changed ownership within the octroi limits. The petitioner argued that the refusal to refund the octroi was illegal and unconstitutional since octroi can only be levied on goods consumed or used within the municipal limits. The petitioner maintained that the change of ownership within the octroi limits should not affect the liability for octroi if the goods are not used or consumed within those limits but are exported out. The Council resisted the petition, arguing that the refund was rightly rejected because the goods had changed hands within the octroi limits, and the importer and exporter were not the same person, as per Rule 25(3)(d) of the Rules. Interpretation of Relevant Rules and Provisions: The court examined the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 2(28) of the Act defines octroi as "a tax on the entry of goods into a municipal area for consumption, use, or sale therein." Rules 19 and 20 prescribe the procedure for temporary detention of imported goods in a Bonded Warehouse and eventual export, while Rule 23 provides for the refund of deposits made under Rule 20. Rule 25 lays down the procedure for temporary detention of dutiable goods for eventual export with the importer himself, and Rule 28 provides for the refund of the deposit made under Rule 24 at the time of import. The court noted that the petitioner had followed the procedure prescribed in Rules 19, 20, 24, and 25 while importing and exporting the goods. The Council had rejected the refund claim solely on the ground that the goods had undergone a change of ownership within the octroi limits. The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Burmah Shell Oil Co. v. Belgaum Borough Municipality and Hiralal v. Broach Municipality, which established that octroi is levied on goods brought within the octroi limits for consumption or use therein. If the goods are not imported for consumption or use within the limits but for export, they are not exigible to octroi. The court found that the petitioner had imported the goods for eventual export and had followed the prescribed procedure for claiming a refund. The Council's refusal to refund the octroi on the grounds of change of ownership was not justified. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 570 for the goods deposited in the Bonded Warehouse and Rs. 239.59 for the goods temporarily detained by the petitioner for eventual export. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent Municipal Council to refund the petitioner the sum of Rs. 809.59 within three months. The petition was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.
|
