Bombay High Court
Union Of India & Another vs Municipal Commissioner Ngp & ... on 14 June, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp3547.03 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3547 OF 2003
1. Union of India,
through Divisional Railway
Manager, South East Central
Railway, Nagpur.
2. Medical Superintendent,
South East Central Railway,
Nagpur. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Municipal Commissioner,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Nagpur.
2. Deputy Municipal Commissioner,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Nagpur.
3. Assistant Commissioner (Octroi),
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri N.P. Lambat, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
JUNE 14, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Shri Lambat, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Purna
Municipal Council & Ors., reported at (1992) 1 SCC 100,
judgment of this Court delivered at Aurangabad in Writ Petition
Nos. 4035 of 1993 (The Union of India & Anr. vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr.) and other connected matters on
21.08.2007 and the judgment delivered on 13.06.2012 at
Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 3764 of 1995 (Union of India vs.
Municipal Council, Warora & Anr.).
2. Nobody appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
3. After hearing Shri Lambat, learned counsel, we find
that the above mentioned judgments clinch the controversy.
Hence, we make rule absolute in terms of orders passed in this
matter only on 18.12.2003. The said order is reproduced
below for ready reference.
"Heard learned counsel for the rival parties on
interim relief.
In terms of Rule 6(a) of the Nagpur Municipal
Corporation Octroi Rules of the city of Nagpur, goods, the
ownership whereof vests in the Government at the time they enter
the octroi limits, if accompanied by a certificate of an officer of
the Government, who shall either be a Gazetted Officer or an
Officer duly authorized by the Head of the Importing Department
to grant such certificate, to the effect that such goods are to be
used solely for the public purposes and not to be used for purposes
of profit or for any commercial undertaking for sale to the public,
shall not attract the octroi duty. It would be open for the
Corporation to examine the entry of each consignment and if the
goods answer the requirement of Rule 6(a) of the Octroi Rules,
then, in that event, Corporation shall not charge octroi. It would
also be open for the Corporation to examine the original terms of
the contract. Merely because the contract is for F.O.R. delivery,
that by itself would not be a ground to refuse to grant octroi
benefit to the petitioners. The relevant consideration should be
when the title to the goods passes under the provisions of Sale of
Goods Act. The Corporation shall pass reasoned order in case of
import of each consignment while refusing to grant octroi
exemption to the petitioner. With these directions, the import of
the goods by the petitioner shall be allowed by the Corporation.
Parties to act on copy authenticated by the concerned
P.A."
4. Writ petition is thus allowed and disposed of. Rule
is made absolute in above terms. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
