9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. The facts of the case insofar as they are pertinent to the decision of the points in issue lie within a very narrow compass. The entire case turns upon the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) and certain notifications issued thereunder. It appears that under section 127(1) of the Act the Corporation has got the power to impose property taxes and taxes on vehicles, boats and animals. By sub-section (2) it has the option to impose other kinds of taxes one of which is octroi with which we are primarily concerned in these appeals Sub-section (3) provides that the Municipal taxes shall be assessed and levied in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules. Section 149 sub-section (1) enjoins the Corporation to make detailed provisions in connection with the assessment and 15-549 SCI/78 collection of any of the taxes and sub-section (2) of section 149 enables the Government either to refuse to sanction the rules and refer the same back to the Corporation for consideration or to sanction the same with or without modifications. We shall extract the relevant sections in a later part of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however made rule 5(8) which runs thus:- "In respect of any new materials or machinery belonging to and imported by any industrial, manufacturing, processing or assembling concern established or to be established in the Industrial Estate or Area for the purpose of manufacturing processing or assembling finished articles in the said Industrial Estate or Area the Commissioner shall not levy octroi for a period of 10 years from the date of demarcation of such area as an industrial estate or area; provided that this exemption shall not be given in respect of any raw materials imported for the purpose of refilling packing or repacking only. Provided that no exemption from octroi shall be given or claimable unless the importer produces at the time of import but not afterwards a certificate in the form prescribed in Schedule 'P' signed by the proprietor or the manager of the said industrial concern certifying that the raw materials or the machinery that are being imported are the property of the ownership of the said industrial concern and that the said materials or machinery are to be used or are intended to be used by the said industrial concern for the purpose of manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and allotted, was made by the Corporation. When the matter reached the Government of Maharashtra it passed a resolution dated 30-7- 1968 to be effective from 1-9-1968 which runs thus:- "Government Resolution, Urban Development, Public Health and House, Department No. PMC/2862/15/C dated 28th January, 1963. Government Circular, Urban Development, Public Health and Housing Department No. MUN/1164/58163/A dated 25th February, 1966. Letter No. MC/101 dated 2nd June, 1968 from the Municipal Commissioner, Poona Municipal Corporation. "Resolution: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (2) and (5) of section 149 and sub- section (1) of section 455 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 Government is pleased to accord sanction to the deletion of Clause (8) of Rule 5 of the Octroi Rules of the Poona Municipal Corporation. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (3) of section 149 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 Government is pleased to specify 1st September, 1968 as the date on which this sanction shall be come operative. By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra Sd./ C.F. Mathias Under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Government dated 30-7-1968 was to be so read as to incorporate the proviso suggested by the Corporation, namely, that the concessions already granted to the industrialists would not be disturbed. Mr. Dewan submitted that even if the Government order dated 30-7-1968 sought to take away the exemption, the order itself was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the conditions required by section 149(2) of the Act had not been complied with. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced before us by counsel for the parties. We feel that in the circumstances of this case and in the view that we take, it is not at all necessary for us to travel into the domain of promissory estoppel. We are clearly of the opinion that reading the order dated 30-7-1968 against the history and background of the recommendation of the Corporation, the first contention of the respondents must prevail. It is not disputed that the Corporation in its resolution dated 30-5-1968 while recommending to the Government to delete rule 5(8) expressly recommended that the exemption already granted would continue. The last paragraph of the resolution runs thus:- "Octroi Rule No. 5(8) is h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lving an increase in the rate or rates of the levy or the extent thereof". This sub-section gives three alternative courses to the Government. After the matter is submitted by the Corporation to the Government (1) it may refuse to sanction the rules recommended, or (2) it may refer back to the Corporation any rule for further consideration or (3) it may sanction the rule as recommended, or with certain modifications as it thinks fit. There can be no doubt that the Government had the power to make modifications in the recommendation submitted by the Corporation, but the express provision by which the Government could refer the matter back to the Corporation is clearly suggestive of the fact that the Government would refer the matter to the Corporation if it wants to modify the proposal. In the instant case, the Government has done nothing of the sort but has clearly passed the order purely in terms of the recommendation. In these circumstances, therefore, the inference is irresistible that the Government never intended to make any changes in the rule recommended by the Corporation particularly because the question of not accepting the condition recommended by the Corporation, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom octroi duty given to the respondents is unconditionally withdrawn with effect from 1-9-1968 then this would have the effect of extending the application of the rules to an area where they did not apply. This is yet another reason why the Government impugned order should be read down so as to provide for deletion of rule 5(8) with the exception that the concession already granted will continue. For the reasons given above, we interpret the Government order mentioned above in the manner aforesaid and hold that the deletion of rule 5(8) has not taken away the concession already granted to the respondents and, therefore, the respondents are not affected by the order. In view of this, it is not necessary to quash the order of the Government because the respondents get the relief they wanted if we interpret the Government order as we have. The order of the High Court quashing the Government order is, therefore, set aside and the appeals are disposed off accordingly, in the circumstances without any order as to costs. S.R. Appeals allowed. C.A.No. 94 of 1971 FAZAL ALI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court dated 21st December, 1970 dismissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
