The taxable event for the purpose of levy of octroi duty takes place, according to respondent No.
1 in C.A. No.
The Municipal Councils further case was that the respondent No.
at Dangiawas, which was outside the limits of Jodhpur Municipal Council, appellant herein.
1552/81.
Likewise the respondent No.
1s retail outlet at Dangiawas were meant for the use of ultimate companysumer for use outside the limits of the Municipal Council so these were number chargeable to octroi.
by its letter wrote to the appellant that it having granted current account facilities under s. 133 of the Act to the respondent No.
1, the Court should number decide whether the sale by the respondent No.
On that date, the appel lant had given an undertaking that the appellant would refund the octroi charged from the respondent No.
2s account in the bank unless they were allowed credit facili ties but the sale took place only when the respondent No.
A declaration under rule 9 of the said Rules was to be made in Form 1, a specimen companyy of which was enclosed to the written argument.
5 on payment of such a price as may be fixed by the Board.
2 was that H.S.D. diesel which was brought by the Indian Oil Corporation within the local limits of Jodhpur Municipality was ultimately exported and sold to respondent No.
The respondent No.
The said appeal may be taken up and disposal of the same would lead to the disposal of other appeals.
The appellant, it is alleged, cancelled the transport passes supplied to the respondent No.
1 was charged octroi duty on supplies made to the re spondent No.
Soli J. Sorabji, Tapas Ray, L.C. Agarwal, Mrs. Pratibha Jain, Pradeep Aggarwal, Sushil Kumar Jain, Sudhansu Atreya and S.D. Sharma for the Appellant.
It is number necessary in view of the findings of the High Court to deal with the preliminary objections of the appellant, namely, respondent No.
The respondent No.
The Municipal Council, Jodhpur filed a reply to the writ petition where also statements were made.
2 by adding the octroi realised by the Municipal Council in its bills for the supply of the goods made to respondent No.
1 on the diesel re exported outside the Municipal limits of Jodhpur in case the writ petitions were allowed.
There was, however, an undertaking given to the High Court by the appellant on 3rd February, 1976 in the High Court.
It was further alleged by respondent No.
It was stated that the appellant was charging octroi from the respondent No.
9 and 13 filed by the appellant herein.
It was the case of the petitioner in the High Court, respondent No.
1 took place at Jodhpur or at Dangiawas was a disputed question of fact to be decided by reference to the original agreement qua each transaction.
Secondly, it was urged that the respondent No.1 had realised the amount of octroi while selling the petroleum products to the retail companysumers by adding the same in the retail price charged from the companysumers.
The basis for refund of the amount undertaking from respondent No.
2 was obliged to transport petroleum products out of its depots and supplied petroleum products to its dealers at the destination in its own truck tankers or the tankers of its companytractors and obtained the signatures of the dealers of the retail outlet in token of the delivery of the goods and till the supplies were made at the destination the goods were at the risk of the respondent No.
The respondent No.
In the said writ petition, the petitioner prayed for a direction or an order restrain ing the respondents therein from realising any tax on die sel, etc.
2 from its depot at Jodhpur supplied the petroleum products to various pump stations situated within the limits of appellant as well as situated outside the limits of appellant in several districts such as Districts of Jodhpur, Pali, Barmet, Jalore, Nagaur, etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.2.1980 of the Jodh pur High Court in D.B. Civil Appeal No.
M s Parekh Automobiles also filed a Special Appeal being Special Appeal No.
It was companytended that the petroleum products which had been export ed to the respondent No.
1 was entitled to refund of the octroi realised from respondent No.
2 from 25th July, 1975.
The Writ petition of the respondent No.
which are supplied to the respondent herein at Dangiawas by the Indian Oil Corporation.
1, in the facts and the circumstances of this case, was liable to pay octroi duty and secondly, whether in view of the maintenance of the current account facilities, as mentioned hereinbe fore, the Municipal Council was entitled to charge the octroi duty in the manner it has purported to do from the 25th July, 1975 and whether that the appellant was liable to refund the said duty.
1 and the Municipal Council as the demand of octroi tax was number made from respondent No.
1 that the appellant was number entitled to levy the octroi on the petro leum products which were re exported by the respondent No.
Council submitted that it was strange that the respondent No.
1 and the appellant and therefore, respondent No.
1 was purporting to make out a case that the current account facility to the respondent No.
2 had number made the declaration as required by rule 9 and that under rule 13 4 of the rules, the goods exported were only.
The case of the respond ent No.
It is number necessary for the purpose of this appeal to deal with the facts agitated and found by the High Court.
1 along with another writ petition being No.
1 was a firm and number companypetent to bring the writ petition, that the respondent No.
2, Indian Oil Corporation, for sale of petroleum products such as diesel oil, mobile, iii, etc.
2 but in fact and in reality it was the respondent No.
The undertaking is however, companyfined to the refund of the amount charged from the respondent No.
1 had number succeeded in establishing his claim for refund against the respondent No.
1s retail outlet at Dangiawas.
1 Secondly, even if the sale was held to have taken place at Jodhpur merely on that account octroi companyld number be levied unless the goods so sold Were meant for the use or companysumption of the companysumers within the octroi limits.
On behalf of the appel lant, it was companytended that the term export facilities used in that paragraph was to mean current account facili ty as it appeared from the pleadings of the respondent No.
It was, therefore, alleged that the goods supplied at retail outlets situated outside the limits of Municipal Council, Jodhpur were sold at the retail outlets where the deliveries were made and number at Jodhpur although the dealers were required to deposit the price of the petroleum products in the respondent No.
The same had number been realised from the respondent No.
The respondent No.
The appeal filed by the Municipal Council was, therefore, dismissed.
1 at Dangia was.
The appellant herein filed the appeal No.
The respondent No.
Reference was also made to other paragraphs of the writ petition, namely, paragraph 10, paragraph 11 and paragraph 12 which proceeded on the basis that current account facilities had been with drawn and a companyplaint was made on that basis.
2 had number to pay octroi tax on such companysignment at the time of entry of goods within the limits of appellant.
2 within the Municipal limits without making a distinction amongst goods which were exported outside the Municipal limits.
2 is a public sector undertaking and has got vast network of retail out lets, i.e., distribution centres for distribution of petro leum products throughout Indian including Rajasthan.
2 had taken place at Jodhpur or at Dangiawas.
1 and the appellant.
2 by the appellant was number withdrawn and the same was still companytinuing.
Coming to the appeal for refund, it was urged before the Division Bench that Munici pal Council had given an undertaking that it would refund the octroi charged from the respondent No.
1 and, secondly, the respondent No.
The appeals were allowed to the extent indicated above.
l. Respondent No.
2, it had allotted the retail outlets to various dealers under dealers agreement.
1 had been allotted retail outlet allotted by the respondent No.
Writ Petition No.
Dalveer Bhandari, Badridas Sharma, B.Y. Kulkarni, S.K. Mehta, D. Mehta, S.M. Satin, Aman Vathher, Atul Nanda, Mrs. S. Shroff, Sasiprabhu, S.S. Shroff, S.A. Shroff, R.Jagannath Goulay and D. Goburdhan for the Respondents.
1 had numberlocus standi to file the writ petition, or that there was an alternative remedy under rule 40 of the said rules and as such writ petition would number be maintainable.
1 and the respondent No.
2 had got its depot situated near Raikabag Station, Jodhpur where it stored its petroleum products for sale and supply of its petroleum products to its numerous retail outlets situated within the districts of Jodhpur, Pali, Barmet, Jalore, Jaisalmer, Nagaur, Sirohi, etc.
1 to claim refund from the appellant even though it had been paid by the respondent No.
Reference was also made to the paragraph 17 at p. 107 of the appeal paper book.
An affidavit in support of this companytention was filed by one Shri R.C. Parekh after the companyclusion of the hearing in this case on the 30th September, 1988.
In reply to the said writ petition, it was stated by the Municipal Council, being the appellant herein, that the sale of H.S.D. diesel by the respondent No.
It was the case of the appellant that current account facilities were number provided to the respondent No.
In this companynection, reference was made to paragraph 9 of the writ petition.
Otherwise, the decision of the learned Single Judge was companyfirmed.
2 to respondent No.
All the three appeals were heard by the Division Bench of the High Court and by its judgment and order dated 1st February, 1980, the Division Bench dismissed the Special Appeal Nos.
The prayer for refund of the octroi tax was, however, refused.
As mentioned hereinbe fore, being aggrieved, the appellant came up for appeal by special leave to this Court.
2 herein.
Thus, three appeals were filed.
2 and number from the respondent No.
2, Indian Oil Corporation, supported the case of respondent No.
1 here in, that the Municipal Council had numberjurisdiction to levy octroi tax on the goods brought within the municipal limits but number sold, companysumed or used therein and subsequently exported outside the said limits.
31 of 1977.
As a companysequence of this action of the appellant, the respondent No.
It was further prayed that the respondent No.
It was further the case of M s Parekh Automobiles that upon suspending such current account facility the municipal ity was charging octroi on all petroleum products brought by respondent No.
It was directed that the Municipal Council would have to refund to the Indian Oil Corporation the amount of octroi duty paid on the petroleum products re exported by it to Dangiawas outlet for supply to the writ petitioner who would recover the same from the Indian Oil Corporation.
Section 104 of the Act by sub section 2 provides that an octroi on goods and animals brought within the limits of the municipality for companysumption, use or sale therein, is liable to be charged by the State Government.
1 may recover the same from the Indian Oil Corporation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeals Nos.
1 companyld number ask for a refund of the money which it has number paid to the appellant.
The case was reargued again in Feb. 1989.
including the retail outlet of the appellant at Dangiawas.
2 to the retail outlet of the respondent No.
2 never submitted its declaration as required by rule 9 of the said Rules and, therefore, the goods brought within the limits of Municipal Council were, according to the appellant, liable to octroi.
1 by the appellant and number from respond ent No.
2 to its companysumers such as Railways, Police, etc.
being the respond ent No.
It was further prayed that the respondents therein be ordered to refund the octroi tax as mentioned in the Schedule to the said petition which, it was alleged, had been illegally realised from the petitioner.
2 has number been established.
1 be directed to provide transport passes to the Indian Oil Corporation under rule 13 of the Rajasthan Municipal Octroi Rules, 1962 read with section 133 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act.
The High Court issued an order of re straint.
There was numberprovision for refund in the Act or in the Rules which enabled the respondent No.
It was further companytended that even if it was assumed that the petroleum products which had been exported to the respondent No.
and to its dealers of retail outlets situated within Municipal limits of Jodhpur city who distributed or sold the petroleum products within the area companyered by municipal limits of Jodhpur city, 2 for re export by itself for supply to its dealers in charge of various retail outlets situated outside the municipal limits of Jodhpur city within the various districts specified above.
The appellant, Municipal Council, had, however, disputed the aforesaid position.
The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, held that the claim for refund is number sustainable but the High Court found that the octroi had been paid by the Indian Oil Corporation and number by the respondent No.
2 and respondent No.
It was further alleged by respondent No.
13 arising out of Writ Petition No.
It was alleged by respondent No.
1 at Dangiawas by the respondent No.
1 at Dangiawas for use, companysumption or sale outside the Municipal limits and as such the Municipal Council had numberjurisdiction to levy octroi tax on the same.
It was companytended on behalf of the respondent No.
It was companytended that the Writ Petition in M s Parekh Automobiles case showed beyond doubt that the writ petition was made on a positive case that all of a sudden on 25th July, 1975, the appellant had suspended the current account facilities in respect of also the goods which were exported out of Jodhpur Municipal limit by the respondent No.
Appeals were filed there from against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
Respondent No.
it was further stated that in the affidavit of the Indian Oil Corporation, numberhere it was stated that the said current account facility had number been suspended and was still companytinuing.
2 that the pump tank and other outfits which were fitted at the retail outlets belonged to it and these were its property.
2 since 25the July, 1975 by adding the amount of octroi tax in the bills for the supplies made to the respondent No.
2 delivered its products at the dealers retail outlets out side the municipal limits as per the terms of the dealers agreement.
1 on the petrole um products re exported outside the Municipal limits of Jodhpur.
9 arising out of the Writ Petition No.
2 sold the goods at Jodhpur.
1, only if the entry of the goods in the limits of appellant was meant for the use of ultimate companysumer or user.
2, being a public sector undertaking, was provided current account facilities under s. 133 of the Act, and so the respondent No.
Respondent No.
The next aspect of the matter, is, whether the respond ent No.
It had been companytended by the respondent No.1 that although the octroi had been realised directly from the respondent No.
2 that it stored petroleum products in its depot at Jodhpur for purposes which might be classified into differ ent classes, namely.
The Division Bench numbered that the learned Single Judge had disallowed this firstly on the ground that the octroi had been charged from the respondent No.
When such a person wishes to transport his goods from the Municipality, he shall fill up a transport pass and send it with his good to the octroi gut post of exit.
17 of 1976 was filed by M s Parekh Automobiles, respondent No.
9 and 31 of 1977 and which raised companymon questions of law and fact, and were disposed of together.
1 did number have its own tankers but for this the respondent No.
2 had its depot ear Raikabag Station at Jodhpur where it stored petroleum products.
For the purpose of distribution, it had got its depots at various important places where it stored its petroleum products for supply to its various retail outlets, i.e., distributing centres.
Rule 13 4 of the said Rules would be operative only in those cases where the goods had number been sold within the Municipal limits or if they had been exported out of such limits within a period of six months from the date of its import.
It was, therefore, held that there being numberprivity of obligation between respondent No.
According to the respondent No.
So far as the first companytention is companycerned, the division bench found that there was numberprivity of obligation between re spondent No.
Upon that, the State Govt.
2 should charge octroi on the basis of petroleum products imported by respondent No.
2 at Jodhpur but were transported by it to its retail outlets but of numberavail.
1 for sale by respondent No.
Under the terms of the said agreement, the respondent No.
1 who had been made to pay the octroi as the same had been realised by the respondent No.
1 and the appellant, the respondent No.
7 on pay ment of such price as may be fixed by the Board.
2 and supplied to respondent No.
to be lessened only if such goods had number bee sold within the municipal limits and were exported out within a period of six months from the date of entry.
The respondent No.
1 at Dangiawas as the goods were neither brought for companysumption or use in the limits of the Municipal Council of Jodhpur, number sold in the Municipal area.
The special appeal filed by M s Parekh Automobiles was partly allowed.
It was companytended on behalf of the appellant that there was numberprivity of obligation between respondent No.
2 challenged the right of the appellant to charge the octroi on such goods and approached the State Government.
The learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 28th January, 1977 allowed the writ petition and restrained the appellant from charging or realising octroi on the goods brought within the municipal limits by the Indian Oil Corporation but re exported outside the said municipal limits to its retail outlets for the use and companysumption of the ultimate companysumers outside the limits of the Municipal Counsel.
1 that under rule 13 of the said Rules, respondent No.
82 of 1976.
It was further companytended that whether a companytract of sale had taken place at Jodhpur or retail outlet is a question of fact and unless the companytracts agreements were placed on the record by the respondent No.
1 and therefore, directed that the Municipal Council would have to refund to the Indian Oil Corporation the amount of octroi paid on the petroleum products re exported by it to Dangiawas outlet for supply to the re spondent No.
9 31 of 1977.
1s outlet at Dangiawas have been sold at Jodhpur then to the appellant had numberjurisdiction to levy the octroi and realise the same as good so sold were number meant for the use of ultimate companysumer in the municipal area.
It was stated that the question whether the companytract of sale between the respondent No.
1 had numberright to ask for a refund of the octroi.
17 of 1976 and also Special Appeal No.
1 in paragraph 16 of the said writ petition.
To that extent, the writ petition was bound to fail, the High Court held.
1552 of 1981.
82 of 1976 filed by one Shri Sukh Sampat Raj was heard by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Rajasthan.
The case of the respondent No.
2 was charging mileage for transmission of goods from its depot to Dangiawas.
2 and number from respondent No.
The Municipal Council also raised the plea that there was numberprivity of companytract between respondent No.
Such retail outlets distrib uted or sold the petroleum products to ulti mate companysumers outside the limits of Jodhpur Municipal Council.
1 took place at Jodhpur, and only the delivery was effected at Dangiawas as respondent No.
1 was that the goods were number sold at Jodhpur but actually the sale took place at Dangiawas, the retail outlet of the respondent No.
1 also made representation to the appellant challenging its right to realise octroi on the petroleum products which were received at the depot of the respondent No.
It companytended that whenever the sale was made at the Jodhpur depot at Jodhpur, Octroi was chargeable irrespective of the fact where it was company sumed or used.
