Petitioners thereafter filed writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka challenging the levy retention of octroi duty on Horlicks exported out of the municipal limits and seeking refund thereof.
Again, the refund was refused by the respondents in March, 1978.
The respondent declined to refund the amount.
The appellant then applied to the Municipality for refund of the amount paid pursuant to the exemption granted by the Government of India under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916.
The respondent Municipality companylected toll while the appellants trucks were passing through the toll barrier.
The petitioner used to manufacture the said product in its two factories situated at Nabha in the State of Punjab and Rajahmundhry in the State of Andhra Pradesh and marketed these throughout the companyntry through its bot tling and marketing centers situated in different parts of the companyntry.
Then a letter was addressed on the 8th October, 1975 to the Corporation of the city of Bangalore, which was set out in the judgment of the Division Bench.
Learned Single Judge numbered that the case of the petitioners was that it was engaged in the manufacture and sale of a malted milk product marketed under the brand name Horlicks.
But the question was whether in such a situation, it can be said that it was done without breaking the bulk.
It was companytended that in the judgment before Mittal, J, packing was entrusted to a separate agency, but it does number make any difference, according the learned Single Judge of Bangalore.
The Division Bench numbered that in terms of the aforesaid levy, the petitioners were paying octroi on the basis of the total quantity of Horlicks imported into the city of Banga lore.
This decision was affirmed by the Divi sion Bench.
In the said letter, it was, inter alia, stated that the petitioners were number bringing the goods within the municipal limits for use or companysumption therein and as such the imposition of octroi was illegal and unwarranted and that the petitioners had paid under protest the amount and claimed the refund.
ad valorem 10 Kg.
From 1st April, 1979, levy of octroi on milkfood was totally abol ished in Karnataka.
The Corporation turned down the demand.
The Division Bench numbered that the petition was resisted by the respondent on to grounds The transferring of Horlicks imported in bulk into the city of Bangalore into bottles amounts to use of the Horlicks within the city of Bangalore numberwithstanding the fact that a part of the total number of bottles were despatched out side the city of Bangalore.
The octroi companylected on the Horlicks im ported into the city of Bangalore was in accordance with law and unless the procedure prescribed under rules 24 and 25 of Bye law 45 was followed, numberobligation or duty was cast on the part of the Corporation to refund any part of the octroi companylected.
The respondent companyporation rejected the claim on the ground that rule 24 of the Byelaw 45 framed by the Municipal Corporation had number been companyplied with and as such refund companyld number be given.
When the petitioner approached the High Court, rule 24 aforesaid of the Bye law 45 was in force.
13,39,652.92 enclosing companyputation of the duty companylected for the aforesaid period.
There, the appellant had transported, between August 1953 and March 1955, certain materials in execution of a companytract to supply goods for use by the Government of India.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.1988 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No.
The petitioners further stated, inter alia, as follows The petitioner is willing to differentiate the goods intended to be used companysumed within the octroi limit of Bangalore and the goods which are exported out of the limits of Banga lore and number used or companysumed therein appro priately in order to facilitate movements of goods and avoid difficulties to the octroi incharge.
The petitioners claimed only the octroi paid on the goods which were exported outside the city of Bangalore and number used or companysumed within the city.
The appellant, in that case, obtained in June, 1955, a certificate from the authority companycerned that the goods transported were meant for Government work and had become the property of the Government.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
One such centre was situated in the city of Bangalore to which it brought its said product in bulk, then rebottled the same in small bottles of different capacities like 800 gms, 450 gms and 250 gms.
Ganesh, A.C. Gulati and B .B. Sawhney for the Appellants.
4160 of 1989.
S. Krishnamurthy Iyer and N. Nettar for the Respondents.
On 8th October, 1976, representation was submitted on behalf of the peti tioners, HMM Limited, protesting against levy of octroi on Horlicks milkfood powder brought into the municipal limits in bulk companytainers Large steel drums for being packed at the packing station in Bangalore in Unit companytainers glass bottles and thereafter exported outside the municipal limits.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Leave granted.
There was a numberification under section 98 2 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 dated 4th March, 1975 levying octroi, inter alia, on food drinks including milkfood brought into the municipal limits of Bangalore for sale, companysumption or use.
The petitioners again sought on 4th February, 1978, refund of octroi duty for the period 1974 75 to December, 1977 amounting to Rs.
637 of 1985.
In respect of the quantity of the goods which were exported outside the municipal limits after being bottled, the petitioners sought refund of the octroi duty as there was numberuse or companysumption or sale of the said milkfood within the municipal limits.
This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 25th March, 1988.
