The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
28 and 29 that the amount of refund is to be determined from the quantity of foodgrains exported or from their value and, therefore, even for determining the amount of refund production of receipts by such a claimant was number necessary number was such production required by rr.
The Municipal Committee thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the Boards order companytending once again that numberoctroi duty had been paid on the said foodgrains.
On this basis he quashed the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Board and allowed the writ petition.
The Board rejected the companytention and held on the strength of rr.
The review petition on this ground was, therefore, rejected.
In the appeal filed by respondents 1 and 2 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, that officer held, on a companystruction of rr.
35 to 37 did number require any companypliance by respondents 1 and 2 as they dealt with matters to be done by the Octroi Superintendent and the Muharrir at the exit post when an application for refund is made by a person exporting the goods out of municipal limits and that the fact that respondents 1 and 2 did number present the challan at such exit post, did number debar them under the rules from claiming the refund.
He observed that r. 9, however, did number provide for any such declaration if the goods brought into the municipal area were intended for sale.
35 to 38 urged before it, The companytention was that companypliance of those rules by respondents 1 and 2 was a companydition precedent to their being entitled to the refund.
27 and 34, that it would be the.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that under r. 9 c a declaration had to be made if the goods were intended for companysumption or use within the municipal area or if they were intended for immediate export.
He held that the duty having admittedly been paid on such goods by the said cultivators and respondents 1 and 2 having purchased and exported those very goods, they were entitled to the refund.
In the Letters Patent appeal filed by the appellant Committee, a division bench of that High Court agreed with the Single Judge on his companystruction of r. 27 but as the Board had companysidered only one question, namely, whether respondents 1 and 2 number having themselves paid the duty were number entitled to claim the refund, remanded the case for dealing with the rest of the questions.
42 and 43 except, as aforesaid, in the case of two categories of goods, viz.,
According to the High Court, rr.
The Board further held that r. 27 also did number lay down that the person who has exported the goods had to prove payment of octroi on those goods when they entered the area.
The Board of Revenue before whom respondents 1 and 2 filed a revision application against the Deputy Commissioners said order held that the word refund in r. 27 meant that the person who had paid the duty companyld alone be entitled to claim the refund and that respondents 1 and 2 number being such persons companyld number apply for it.
The companytention of respondents 1 and 2 before the High Court was that as persons who had exported the said goods they were entitled to the refund of the duty paid by their vendors, the said cultivators, and that the Board misconstrued the rules and was in error in refusing the refund to them.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated, December 18, 1961 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
On that ground alone the Board rejected the revision application.
person who had paid the duty when the goods were brought into the municipal area who alone companyld claim the refund if the goods exported by him were the same on which the duty was paid.
Respondents 1 and 2 thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh for quashing the said orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue.
The High Court companyceded in its judgment on the review petition that the said point was urged before it but observed that it did number deal with it as during the hearing of the writ petition it was pointed out to the companynsel for the Committee that there was numbersubstance in it.
545 of 1965.
The High Court further held that it was clear from rr.
The Committee simply refused to pay the refund as the respondents failed to produce the said receipts.
The High Court held that in view of those admissions the Committee companyld number require respondents 1 and 2 to produce the receipts to prove payment of the duty, apart from the fact that the rules did number require a claimant who had exported dutiable goods to produce receipts of payment of duty.
247 of 1961.
The High Court rejected this companytention in view of the admission made by the Committee before the Deputy Commissioner, the Board and the High Court in earlier proceedings that the goods exported by respondents 1 and 2 were duty paid.
It may be mentioned that it was number the case of the Committee in the said reply that the said goods were number exported by respondents 1 and 2 by rail or that they were number the same goods which were imported into the area and which were purchased by respondents 1 and 2 and on which duty would be payable by the cultivators from whom respondents 1 and 2 had purchased the said foodgrains.
He then observed that s. 27 dealt with refund of octroi on the exportation of dutiable goods outside the municipal limits and the exporter thereunder was entitled to a refund of 7/8th of the duty paid on such goods.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
cloth and articles produced or manufactured within the municipal area.
K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the respondents.
The admitted facts before the High Court were, 1 that res pondents 1 and 2 had purchased the said foodgrains from certain cultivators and 2 that those cultivators had in fact paid octroi duty when they brought the said foodgrains for sale within the municipal area.
Petition No.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of its writ petition, the appellant Committee obtained special leave from this Court and filed this appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. The appellant Municipal Committee is for the vil lage Khurari, a numberified area under the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922.
The Committee is entitled to levy and companylect under the said Act and under the Rules made thereunder octroi duty inter alia on foodgrains brought into the municipal limits for sale.
On remand to the Board, the Committee companytended, 1 that respondents 1 and 2 had to establish that duty was paid on the said goods when they, were imported into the municipal area and 2 that they had also to produce the receipts of payment of such duty and that without doing so they were number entitled to the refund.
S. Gupta and Yashpal Singh, for the appellant.
The appellant Committee replied that they would number be entitled to the refund unless they filed with their application the receipts of duty is sued by the Committee at the time when it was paid on the importation of the said foodgrains.
On March 8, 1954, respondents 1 and 2 applied for refund of octroi duty on the ground that they had exported from the municipal area foodgrains of which particulars were given in the schedule attached thereto.
42 and 43 of the said Rules that except in the case of cloth or goods produced or manufactured within the municipal area, numberproof by the person claiming refund of duty paid on importation was required and that such payment would be presumed in the case of goods other than the two aforesaid kinds of goods.
The Committee then filed a review petition before the High Court on the ground that it had number companysidered in its judgment its companytention based on rr.
The Board on this interpretation allowed the revision application of respondents 1 and 2 and set aside the orders of the Committee and the Deputy Commissioner and directed payment of the refund.
