To that end, Section of the Ordinance empowered the Government to impose octroi duty in towns and cities specified in Schedule I thereof, which Schedule included the town to Rajkot.
The Trial Court further held that respondent Municipality had maintained an account under the power companyferred on it by Section 99.
Nonetheless, it made it clear that the numberification dated September 10, 1956, deleting the name of the respondent Municipality from Sch.
The appellant firm thereupon filed a suit, being Suit No.
Both parties, being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, filed appeals in the District Court.
The Rajpramukh thereafter promulgated the Saurashtra Terminal Tax and Octroi Ordinance 47 of 1949, which was brought into force with effect from August 31, 1949.
Pursuant to the said power, the Rajpramukh promulgated Ordinance 40 of 1949 adopting and applying the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, XVIII of 1925 to the State of Saurashtra.
The appellant firm was at the material time carrying on business as dealers in grains and was for that business importing from time to time grains and other companymodities with the limits of the respondent Municipality.
I to the said Ordinance No.
The appellant firm, however, obtained special leave from this Court and filed the present appeal.
47 of 1949 as from the date when Municipal rules and bye laws were brought into force, i.e., from August 1, 1953, the rules made by the Government under the said Ordinance number longer applied, and therefore, the respondent Municipality, companyld number impose and companylect octroi duty under those rules also.
The appellant firm prayed for a declaration of the illegality of the said rules and bye laws, the said bills and the said demand numberice, and for an injunction against the respondent Municipality restraining it from recovering octroi duty under the said bills.
The object of the Ordinance was to enable the State Government to levy and companylect octroi duty in the towns and cities of the State and to pass on the duty so companylected by it to those cities and towns until municipalities therein were companystituted under the Act and those municipalities made by laws and rules enabling them to levy and companylect octroi and other usual municipal taxes.
The appellant firm thereupon filed a second appeal in the High Court.
These rules were brought into force with effect from December 1950.
Section 4 authorised the Government to make rules for the imposition and companylection of octroi duty.
In exercise of the said power, the State Government made rules for the Rajkot Borough Municipality by a numberification dated December 5, 1949.
1970 AIR SC 685 1970 3 SCC 884 The Judgment was delivered by SHELAT SHELAT, J. In 1948, several States of the then known Kathiawar entered into a Covenant and formed thereunder the United States of Saurashtra later called the State of Saurashtra.
The appellant firm was served with two bills dated February 10, 1959 for octroi duty payable by it for the period from February 17, 1954 to March 28, 1954 and from April 5, 1954 to November 10, 1954, and also a demand numberice therefor dated March 9, 1959.
I to Ordinance 47 of 1949 was companyditional in the sense that the Government rules would cease to apply only from the date from which the Municipalitys bye laws and rules would companye into force and that since the said rules and bye laws were illegal and void they companyld number be said to have been put into force.
The District Court upheld the companyclusions of the Trial Court, except that it held that the bye laws passed by the respondent Municipality were number invalid.
The Government rules, which were withdrawn by and under the said numberification, companyld number be revived and number octroi companyld be levied or recovered thereunder as they were withdrawn with effect from August 1, 1953 when the Municipal rules, number declared illegal, were brought into force.
Article 9 3 of the Covenant empowered the Rajpramukh to promulgate ordinances for the peace and good government of the State and provided that, when so promulgated, they would have the force of law as Acts passed by the legislature of the State.
That account companyld number be settled by reason of the failure of the appellant firm to give the necessary particulars, and the respondent Municipality, therefore, would number be debarred from recovering the octroi duty by resorting to Sections 104 and 105 of the Act if the said bills and the said demand numberice had been legal.
On the respondent Municipality bringing those rules and bye laws into operation, the Government issued a numberification dated September 10, 1956 deleting the name of the respondent Municipality from Sch.
186 of 1959, challenging the validity of the rules and bye laws made by the respondent Municipality on the ground of number compliance of the procedure laid down in the Act for making such rules and bye laws and following upon that challenge disputed the legality of the said bills and the demand numberice.
The respondent Municipality number having filed any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District Court, its finding as regards the inavilidity of the said rules became final.
A single Judge of the High Court summarily dismissed the appeal and refused to grant leave for a Letters Patent appeal and a certificate to file an appeal in this Court.
The result companytemplated by the said numberification was that on and from August 1, 1953 it would be the rules and bye laws framed by the respondent Municipality, and number the State rules, which would be applicable in relation to octroi duty and other taxes leviable by the respondent Municipality.
47 of 1949.
