Under a Notification dated October 29, 1959, bearing No.
The first respondent company thereafter preferred appeals before the District Magistrate, Poone under Section 84 of the Cantonment Boards Act with a prayer for companydonation of the delay in filing the appeals.
On November 29, 1968, the High Court dismissed the said Writ Petition on the ground that the matter involved disputed question of facts and hence the first respondent should exhaust his alternate remedy by referring an appeal to the District Magistrate before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The District Magistrate granted the prayer for companydonation of delay and by a very detailed order allowed the appeals holding that the trailers water tankers manufactured and delivered by the first respondent company did number fall within the scope of any of the items enumerated in the 1st Schedule to the Notification authorising the levy of Octroi Duty and hence the action of the appellants in demanding the payment of Octroi Duty in respect of them was illegal.
The High Court has upheld the view expressed by the District Magistrate that the trailers water tankers did number fall within the scope of any of the entries in the First Schedule to the Notification authorising the levy of Octroi Duty.
Based on the aforesaid Notification the first appellant demanded from the first respondent company payment of Octroi Duty on the trailers water tankers which were brought within the limits of the Cantonment Board.
The total amount so claim ed from the first respondent aggregated to Rs.
The first respondent is a public limited companypany manufacturing trailers and water tankers at its factory at Pimpri in the District of Poone.
Aggrieved by the said decision the appellants preferred a batch of Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging the legality and companyrectness of the aforesaid order passed by the District Magistrate.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 23/24.11.1970 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appln.
The first appellant herein is the Cantonment Board, Dehu Road and the second appellant is its Executive Officer.
He accordingly, set aside the numberices of demand and directed the appellants to refund the amount of Duty already companylected from the first respondent companypany.
Out of the said amount, the first respondent paid Rs.3,18,620.08 under protest, and approached the High Court of Bombay by filing Special Civil Application No.1720 of 1966 challenging the numberices of demand and praying for directions being issued to the first appellant Board to cancel or withdraw the numberices of demand and to refund the amount of Octroi Duty already paid under protest.
Those Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court under the impugned judgment.
3,37,628.08.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The first respondent had submitted tenders to the Defence Department of the Union of India for the manufacture and supply of trailers and water tankers.
Pursuant to the acceptance of those tenders, the first respondent manufactured ant sold to the Union of India different quantities of 100 C.W.D and 10 C.W.D. trailers and two wheeled water tankers.
Thereafter, 682 more such trailers water tankers were also delivered by the first respondent company to the Defence Authorities within the Dehu Road Cantonment limits during 1965 and 1966.
48, 362 to 379 of 1972.
Accordingly, by June July, 1965, 8,953 trailers water tankers were delivered by the first respondent companypany within the limits of the Cantonment Board.
Under the terms of the companytract the ownership passed to the Government of India on inspection of the goods at the first respondents factory premises at Pimpri and appropriation thereof to the companytract companysequent on approval of the goods but delivery was to be effected by the first respondent company free of charge within the Cantonment limits of Dehu Road.
J.S. Talyarkhan, B.H. Wahi, A.N. Haksar, P.K. Ram, A. Narayan and S. Sukumsran for the Respondents.
2217 of 1969.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. These appeals which have been filed on the strength of a certificate dated September 14, 1971 granted by the High Court of Bombay under Article 133 1 a and c of the Constitution of India, as it then stood, are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated November 23, 1970 dismissing a batch of Writ Petitions filed by the appellants herein challenging the order dated May 23, 1969 passed by the District Magistrate, Poone setting aside the numberices of demand of Octroi Duty issued by the appellants to the first respondent company.
Under the provisions of the Cantonment Board Act, the appellant Board with the previous sanction of the Central Government companyld impose Octroi Duty in respect of articles brought into the limits of the Cantonment Board.
M. Tarkunde and K.L. Hathi for the Appellants.
SRO 318, the first appellant imposed a number refundable Octroi Duty in respect of articles brought within the limits of the Cantonment Board, for companysumption, use or sale therein st the rates specified in the First Schedule.
The companyrectness of the companyclusion so recorded by the High Court is challenged by the appellants in these appeals.
