Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs The State Of Mah & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 349 Bom

                                       1                                  WP7430.2005.odt


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                        
                         WRIT PETITION NO. 7430 OF 2005




                                                
    Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
    Liquified Petroleum Gas Bottling Plant,
    Plot No. H-1, M.I.D.C. Chikalthan, Aurangabad.




                                               
    Through it's Senior Regional Manager,
    Shri. Dagadu s/o krishna Sarode,




                                      
    Age: 58 years, Occ. Service,
    R/o. 401, H.P.C.L. Housing Complex, N-2,
                              
    CIDCO, Aurangabad.                                        ... Petitioner
                             
           VERSUS


    1.     The State of Maharashtra,
      
   



    2.     The Commissioner,
           Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad,





           Dist. Aurangabad.


    3.     The Octopi-Superintendent, Municipal Corporation,
           Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.                 ... Respondents





                                    .............
              Smt Anjali Bajpai Dube, Advocate for the petitioner
          Mr S. S. Tope, Advocate for respondent respondent-Municipal
                                  Corporation
                   Mr A. P. Basarkar, AGP for respondent/State
                                    ..............




     ::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:46:58 :::
                                               2                                    WP7430.2005.odt


                                       CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                               A. M. BADAR, JJ.

                                       DATE       : 4TH MARCH, 2016.




                                                         
    ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) :-




                                                        
    .                  Smt. Dube, learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the

demand of octroi even in respect of the goods, which are exported

beyond the Municipal limits, is illegal, so also the respondent cannot

charge 10% octroi on export of goods as per their letter. According to

learned counsel, 14% of the LPG cylinders are consumed within the

municipal limits and 86% are exported outside the municipal limits of

Aurangabad for the purpose of use, consumption and sale. However,

the respondents are charging octroi on the entire product, the same is

illegal and not in consonance with the statute.

2. Mr Tope, learned counsel for respondent-Municipal

Corporation submits that, there is a procedure prescribed under the

Octroi Rules. As the petitioner was provided with the facility of current

account, the petitioner was required to submit monthly statement of

goods consumed within the municipal limits. Within the municipal

limits, 100% octroi is required to be paid and in respect of the sale

3 WP7430.2005.odt

outside the municipal limit, 10% of the octroi is required to be paid.

The petitioner did not adhere to the same.

3. We had heard the matter on 3.3.2016. It was adjourned to

today so as to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to take

instructions as to whether the petitioner would submit the record and

necessary documents with the Municipal Corporation in order to enable

the Municipal Corporation to arrive at the conclusion as to the goods

exported outside the municipal limits and the goods consumed within

the municipal limits. Charge of 10% of the Octroi in respect of the

goods which are used, consumed and sold outside the municipal limit is

in consonance with the Octroi Rules, more particularly Rule 16 thereof.

The said rules are not the subject matter of challenge in the present writ

petition. Mr Tope, learned counsel, on instructions, states that, if the

petitioner submits the documents, the Corporation would consider the

said documents and take appropriate decision upon the same.

4. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, it is

submitted that the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 50,000/- and

thereafter to pay Rs. 3,000/- for every tanker. The said amount

deposited was pursuant to the orders of this Court. The Corporation

4 WP7430.2005.odt

shall consider the documents submitted by the petitioner with regard to

the goods consumed within the municipal limits and the goods which

are exported outside the municipal limits and take decision on the same

for the period from 15.02.2006 to June 2011. The Corporation shall

endeavour to take decision expeditiously, preferably within a period of

six months from the date of receipt of the documents. The petitioner

may present itself through its authorized officer before the Municipal

Corporation as may be required. In case, the respondent-Municipal

Corporation comes to the conclusion that the less amount is payable by

the petitioner than what has been already paid then the remaining

amount shall be refunded to the petitioner and if petitioner is required to

pay more than what is deposited, the petitioner shall comply with the

order of the Corporation in that regard. We have not relegated the

petitioner to the remedy of appeal, however, have directed the

respondent to consider the documents that would be submitted to it and

take decision afresh in respect of payment of octroi by the petitioner for

period from 15.02.2006 to June 2011.

5. Rule accordingly disposed of. No costs.

            [ A. M. BADAR, J. ]              [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
    sgp