Bombay High Court
Patni Automobiles A Prop.Concern ... vs The Corporation Of City Of Nagpur & ... on 18 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp3515.02 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3515 OF 2002
Patni Automobiles,
a proprietary concern through
its Proprietor Shri Bansilalji Patni,
aged about 78 years, occupation -
Business, r/o Kamptee Road,
Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Corporation of City of Nagpur,
through its Commissioner.
2. The Octroi Superintendent,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Nagpur.
3. Deputy Municipal Commissioner,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
JANUARY 18, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
The petitioner, a dealer of two wheelers
manufactured by Bajaj Auto Limited at Pune, for the area,
questions denial of transit pass to it for two wheelers which are
sent directly to sub-dealers in adjacent districts like Bhandara,
Yavatmal etc.
2. Shri Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the
threshold pointed out that after introduction of Local Body Tax
(LBT), the controversy has remained only academic. He also
points out that interim order has been passed by this Court on
18.06.2003 and hence no coercive steps have been taken
against the petitioner.
3. By placing reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tata Engineering &
Locomotive Company Limited & Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation
of the City of Thane & Ors., reported at 1993 Supp. (1) SCC
361 (paras 10 to 12), judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Khandelwal Traders, Akola vs. The Akola
Municipal Council, reported at AIR 1985 Bom. 218 and a
judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
State Bank of India vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay, reported at 1997 (3) Mh. L.J. 18, he submits that
when there is a sale within octroi limits, for immediate export,
octroi is never leviable. In this situation, demand of transit pass
was justified and could not have been denied. He also adds
that here, the authorities have taken note of the fact that sale is
to a customer outside Municipal limits but then have ignored
the most important aspect viz., that there is no import.
4. Nobody appears for the respondents.
5. The petitioner questions communication dated
03.05.2001 by which the Octroi Superintendent informed it
that two wheelers were being sent in petitioners' name for sale
and thereafter the petitioner was selling it to the customers
residing outside the Municipal limits, hence, there was / is no
question of issuing transit pass.
6. It appears that against this demand, he made a
representation and it has been decided by an order dated
18.07.2002 as an appeal. Therein, the Deputy Municipal
Commissioner has observed thus :
"So far as the delivery of goods at Akola and Bhandara is
concerned it is the working arrangements of dealer in
order to facilitate himself to avoid additional
transportation cost, but the fact remains that the whole
consignment as per invoice of M/s. Bajaj Auto, Pune or
Aurangabad belongs to appellant who is transacting his
business within N.M.C. limits and head office at Nagpur.
If at all he wants to avail the Octroi exemption facility he
may open his branches at the places where he has
appointed sub-dealers or selling the goods and can
import the goods on that address and carry out the sales
from that address only. So far as the question of issuing
of transit passes for such consignments which are directly
sent to Akola or Bhandara is concerned the octroi rules
for transit provide for definite route for such
transportation of goods. In the instant case, the goods
are already sold out by the Appellant from his Nagpur
office, hence the question of issuing transit pass for the
already sold out goods does not arise."
7. Thus, only because sale has taken place at Nagpur,
the request has been found improper.
7. Section 114(e) of the City of Nagpur Corporation
Act, 1948, permits octroi as a cess on animals or goods
"brought within the city" for sale, consumption or use therein.
(Emphasis added)
8. The material on record shows that two wheelers in
relation to which transit pass was claimed, have never been
imported within Nagpur Municipal limits. The authorities also
nowhere find any such import. The only finding reached is, the
petitioner sold the vehicles at Nagpur and this finding is
because the vehicles are sent from Pune in the name of the
petitioner. There is no finding anywhere that vehicles were/
are received by the petitioner within Municipal limits at
Nagpur. On the contrary, it is apparent that when transit pass
is claimed for two wheelers which are delivered directly to sub-
dealers at other places mentioned supra, there is no import of
such vehicles within the city. As there is no import, there is no
question of respondents demanding any octroi upon it and as
such the petitioner's seeking any transit pass for such vehicles.
The transit pass at the most may be required to clear Municipal
limits of Nagpur city while carrying those two wheelers in a
truck or trailer from the entry naka to exit naka. The
respondents have under mistaken notion that sale within city
attracts octroi, taken impugned action. The impression and
action is unsustainable.
9. We, therefore, restrain the respondents from
recovering octroi on vehicles which are not brought within
octroi limits of Nagpur Municipal Corporation by the petitioner.
We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned
communication dated 03.05.2001 and consequential order
passed by third respondent i.e. Deputy Municipal
Commissioner, NMC, Nagpur on 18.07.2002. Writ Petition is
thus partly allowed and disposed of. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
