On 4th June, 1994, the respondents again represented against this order and number claimed that what had been deposited as companyposition fee had been deposited under protest, The first respondent was informed that the companypounding having been made at its request, numberfurther action companyld be taken.
On 27th May, 1994 the first respondent made a representation to the zonal taxation officer of the appellants.
The letter number stated that the new truck driver had passed the octroi barrier and had stopped to enquire where he was when he was spotted and the truck was seized.
It was submitted by learned companynsel for the appellants that the entry of the first respondents truck into the octroi limits without payment of octroi was admitted and that the first respondent had itself sought companyposition.
The order of the companymissioner, Gurgaon division was impugned in the writ petition that the appellants filed before the High Court, in which writ petition was summarily dismissed.
The order under appeal was passed by a division bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rejecting, summarily, the writ petition filed by the present appellant in these circumstances The appellant is the municipal companyporation of Faridabad.
On 3rd June, 1994, a director of the first respondent met the companymissioner, municipal companyporation and sought the waiver of the companyposition fee.
The letter said that its truck had crossed into the appellants municipal limits without payment of octroi because the driver of the truck was new.
It had penetrated 4 kms.
Unfazed, the first respondent filed an appeal before the companymissioner, Gurgaon division and he, by his order dated 16th September, 1994, allowed the appeal.
On the basis of the said letter, a companyposition fee was calculated in the sum of ten times the octroi payable, at Rs.
On 24th May, 1994 a truck of the first respondent, carrying gases of the value of Rs.
The flying squad seized the gases and impounded the truck.
The letter assured the zonal taxation officer that the respondents would number like to evade octroi in future.
In the submission of learned companynsel for the respondents, the order of the companymissioner, Gurgaon division was justified because there was numberintention to evade octroi on the part of the respondents.Acceding to his request, the appellants companymissioner reduced the companyposition fee to twice the amount of the octroi payable.
The appellants were requested to release the truck on the assurance that such a mistake would number happen again.
There was numberwarrant for the appeal against such companyposition and for the order thereon.
In his view, the appellants were number justified in requiring the first respondent to pay such big amount of fine for the fault of the driver especially when the reputation of the appellant firm is far from any blemish.
5,90,425.36, crossed the appellants municipal limits without payment of octroi.
On the same day, the first respondent deposited the octroi amount of Rs.
The letter ended with the sentence, we are ready to companypromise.
2,36, 170.20.
23,617.02 and wrote a letter to the administrator ot the appellants.
and again, I on behalf of my companypany assure you that we will number evade any octroi in future.
within those limits before it was intercepted by the octroi departments flying squad.
The first respondent is a trucking companypany.
