786 of 1965 on 20.7.1965 in the Gujarat High Court challenging the levy of octroi at the enhanced rate under the said Octroi Rules and Bye laws on several grounds and sought an order restraining the Respondent Municipality from levying and companylecting and or enforcing the recovery thereof in any manner.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 21st January, 1971 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
Seth, Kamal Mehta, K.S. Nanavati and Mrs. A.K. Verma for the Appellant.
as adapted and applied to the State of Saurashtra has a chequered history.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant challenged this enhancement in the rate of octroi duty by filing a writ petition No.
Feeling aggrieved by this action of the Respondent Municipality the Appellant filed a writ petition No.
769 of 1962 in the High Court of Gujarat and also filed a suit for refund of the excess amount recovered from it for the period ending September 30, 1961 after serving a statutory numberice on the respondent Municipality.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. This litigation in which the Appellant has challenged the levy of Octroi Duty imposed by the respondent Municipality under its Octroi Rules and Bye laws framed under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 as adopted by the Government of Saurashtra and companytinued under the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963.
Soli J. Sorabjee, P.M. Raval, M.P. Goswami and H.N. Salve for Respondent No.1.
786 of 1965.
Briefly stated the facts leading to the present appeal are these.
47 of 1949 was promulgated by the Rajpramukh and brought into force with effect from 31.8.1949.
Originally the Respondent Municipality being a District Municipality was governed by the provisions of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, as adapted and applied to the State of Saurashtra, for short the Bombay Act but with effect from 1.1.1965 it is governed by the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 for short the Gujarat Act .
The Appellant is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act carrying on business of manufacturing Soda Ash in its factory at Dharangadhra within the Municipal limits of the Respondent Municipality.
As regards the first companytention raised by companynsel for the appellant it will be necessary to see what Rule 3 and Bye laws, of the Municipal Octroi Rules and Bye laws, 1965 provide both are in identical language and purport to and purport to deal with the companymencement of these Municipal Rules and Bye laws and state these Rules and Bye laws shall companye into force after an exemption is granted by the Government from the Saurashtra Terminal Tax and Octroi Ordinance No.
An Octroi Ordinance called the Saurashtra Terminal Tax and Octroi Ordinance No.
1225 of 1972.
47 of 1949 and the Rules frames thereunder which are at present in force.
T. Desai, Girish Chandra and R.N. Poddar for Respondent No.2.
