Satvinder Singh Bhatia vs The State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 888 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Satvinder Singh Bhatia vs The State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 1 August, 2025

Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas

Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas

                                                            Page 1 of 16




                                                       2025:CGHC:38010
                                                                   AFR
                                            Reserved On : 10.06.2025
                                         Pronounced On : 01.08.2025

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                         WP No. 1706 of 2001

1 - M/s Goldi Wine Pvt.Ltd. Through its Managing Director Bupender Pal
Singh S/o Surjit Singh Bhatia, R/o Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                       --- Petitioner(s)

                                versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Excise
(Separate Revenue) D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)
2- The Excise Commissioner, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan,
Raipur (C.G.)
3- Assistant Commission (Excise) District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                      --- Respondent(s)


                         WP No. 1707 of 2001

1 - Satvinder Singh Bhatia S/o Mahinder Singh Proprietor Adishakti
Associates, R/o Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.)
                                                  ---Petitioner(s)

                                Versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Excise
(Separate Revenue) D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)
2- The Excise Commissioner, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan,
Raipur (C.G.)
3- Assistant Commission (Excise) District - Bilaspur (C.G.)


                                            ... Respondents
________________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate
For State      :   Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Government Advocate
                                                                      Page 2 of 16

________________________________________________________
                    Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.

CAV ORDER

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions,

they are heard analogously and being disposed off by this common order.

2. The petitioners have filed the writ petitions assailing the orders dated

13.08.2001 by which the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Bilaspur has

demanded recovery of import duty on foreign liquor which was transported

after obtaining No Objection Certificates from him.

3. The brief facts as projected by the petitioners are that:

A. The petitioners are dealing with manufacture and distribution of

foreign liquor. They were granted license in prescribed form FL-10 by

Excise Commissioner, erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh for a period

from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001. Condition No.4 specifically stated that "the

licensee shall import and transport foreign liquor after paying the

prescribed import fee or the transport fee, as the case may be". The

petitioners pursuant to the license transported Spirit & Malt (Foreign

liquor and beer) from various places within the erstwhile State of Madhya

Pradesh and also outside the State during the validity of the license. As

per the provisions contained in the Excise Act and the Madhya Pradesh

Foreign Liquor Rules 1996, the petitioners were required to pre-pay the

import duty on spirit and malt which were transported by them from

outside the State and then only no objection certificates in the prescribed

Form FL-21 were issued to them. On that basis petitioners used to

transport the foreign liquor, there was no duty imposed on them on the

spirit and malt which they transported within the territory of undevided

Madhya Pradesh i.e. as it was before 1/11/2000 except Rs.25/- which

was paid as transport fee by way of Treasury Challan.

B. On the basis of the No Objection Certificates issued prior to the

formation of new State of Chhatisgarh M/s Goldi Wines Private Limited

brought liquor to Bilaspur as details in table below :-

Sl. No. NOC No. Issuing Place from where liquor date was brought

1. 376 23/10/2000 M.P. Beer Product, Indore

2. 377 23/10/2000 M.P. Beer Product, Indore

3. 378 23/10/2000 M.P. Beer Product, Indore

4. 380 24/10/2000 Xylone Locuters Distilleries & Vinteners, Raisen

5. 389 24/10/2000 Vitari Distilleries Ltd.

Bhopal

6. 394 30/10/2000 Raj Bevrages Ltd. Bhopal

7. 395 30/10/2000 Raj Bevrages Ltd. Bhopal

8. 396 30/10/2000 Raj Bevrages Ltd. Bhopal

9. 397 30/10/2000 Glassgow Distilliaries, Amarpatan, Satna

10. 398 30/10/2000 Raj Bevrages Ltd. Bhopal

C. On the basis of the No Objection Certificates issued prior to the

formation of new State of Chhatisgarh M/s Adishakti Associate brought

liquor to Bilaspur as details given below :-

Sl. No. NOC No. Issuing Place from where liquor date was brought

1. 375 20/10/2000 Rear Distilleries Ltd, Gwalior

2. 381 24/10/2000 Associated Alcohol & Beverage, Badwah

3. 382 24/10/2000 Associated Alcohol & Beverage, Badwah

4. 383 24/10/2000 Gwalior Distilleries, Gwalior

5. 384 24/10/2000 Gwalior Distilleries, Gwalior

6. 385 24/10/2000 Gwalior Distilleries, Gwalior

7. 386 24/10/2000 Gwalior Distilleries, Gwalior

8. 387 24/10/2000 Gwalior Distilleries, Gwalior

9. 392 30/10/2000 Gwalior Distilleries, Rear

10. 393 30/10/2000 Gwalior Distilleries, Rear

D. It is further contended that as per the Rules that if at all any import

duty or bottle fee is to be levied, the same has to be paid before applying

for No Objection Certificate. No objection certificate is only issued by the

competent authority after conducting enquiry that there is no objection in

issuance of certificate in form FL-21. These Rules were complied with by

the Respondent No.3 and then only the No objection certificates were

issued to the petitioners which fortifies the petitioners' contention that no

import duty was leviable on the petitioners for bringing in the spirit to

Bilaspur.

E. It has been further contended that suddenly after a lapse of more than

8 months, the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) has issued a letter dated

13/8/2001 demanding import duty to the tune of Rs. 8,62,161/- to the

petitioner Satvinder Singh Bhatia and Rs. 8,43,862.50/- to Ms/ Goldi

Mines on the quantity of liquor transported by them on the basis of No

Objection Certificates and permits as mentioned in the foregoing

paragraphs. The petitioners moved representations pointing out legal

provisions and license conditions but the respondents did not take action,

therefore, the present writ petitions have been filed for quashment of the

impugned orders dated 13.08.2001.

4. The State has filed their return denying the allegation mainly

contending that

A. The MP Reorganisation Act has come in to effect on

01.11.2000 (in short 'the Act, 2000') and Section 3 of the Act

provides formation of State of Chhattisgarh and Section 4

deals with the State of Madhya Pradesh, Section 5 of the Act

provides for amendment of the first Schedule to the

Constitution, Section 6 is saving clause, Section 78 deals with

the territorial extent of laws and it provides that all the laws

which were forced in the existing State of Madhya Pradesh will

continue to govern the new State of Madhya Pradesh and

Chhattisgarh, until and unless they are amended by new

State. It has also been contended that Section 8 cannot be

read in isolation. It should be read with Section 79 of the Act

which enables both the States for adaptation, modification,

repeal or alteration of the existing laws prevailing in the

existing State of Madhya Pradesh by competent legislature or

other competent authorities.

B. It has been further contended that in view of the

implementation of the Act, 2000 the first schedule of the

constitution has been amended and for every legal purpose

now Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh are two different and

distinct states. Therefore, if any excise goods are brought from

Madhya Pradesh to Chhattisgarh it must be subjected to

import duties. It has also been contended that the said

changes have been done by means of legislation therefore,

principle of promissory estopple against the legislation is not

permissible as such the contention raised by the petitioners

that after issuance of NOC the demand made by the

respondents is against the principle of estopple and is liable to

be rejected.

C. It has also been contended that the Government of

Chhattisgarh in exercise of powers conferred under Section 79

of the Act has issued Adaptation Law, 2000 which came in

effect from 01.11.2000, accordingly, the State has adopted the

M.P. Excise Act, 1915 vide order dated 05.12.2000. It has also

been contended that the demand notice issued by the

Commissioner is legal and justified as the petitioners have

brought the foreign liquor from Madhya Pradesh i.e. out of

State of Chhattisgarh, as such prayed for dismissal of the writ

petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have

entered into agreement to sale on a particular price on the basis of existing

cost of production, transportation and applicable duties/fees, therefore, any

additional payment from back date will jeopardize the business and they

have to undergo huge loss. The no objection certificate has been issued by

the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) himself, therefore, he is estopped from

raising any demand of import duty from the petitioners. The impugned

orders are contrary to law, terms of agreement and license conditions in

view of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Excise Act and M.P Foreign

Liquor Rules framed thereunder as well as the license issued to the

petitioners and also provisions of Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act

2000. Respondents have no authority under the law to raise a demand with

regard to payment of import duty. Merely because a separate State has

came into existence with effect from 1/11/2000 the import duty cannot be

demanded from the petitioners.

6. He would further submit that similar to the Respondent No.1, a new State of

Uttaranchal has come into existence and the Government of Uttar Pradesh

has issued a Notification dated 17/11/2000 to all the Collectors of Uttar

Pradesh and informed that without any change or modification the foreign

liquor and country liquor shall be supplied as before. In view of the

aforesaid submissions the belated order of recovery of import duty from the

petitioners is patently illegal and bad in the eyes of the law and the same is,

therefore, liable to be quashed and would pray for allowing the writ

petitions.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the

payment of import duty is not contractual obligation but is a statutory

obligation as per the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. Since, Section 50 of

the Act, 2000 deals with contractual obligation not statutory obligation

therefore, Section 50 is not applicable in the present case. He would further

submit that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not applicable to them

though they have issued N.O.C. and demanding payment of duties

subsequently since the State has imposed import duty in the event of import

of liquor from outside the State. The recovery of import duty is strictly in

accordance with the agreement executed with the petitioners and Rule

10(1) of the Chhattisgarh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, therefore, he would

pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. To substantiate his contention, he

would refer to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Jeetram vs. State of Haryana {AIR 1980 SC 1285}, Excise

Commissioner, UP vs. Ramkumar {AIR 1976 SC 2237}, State of Kerla

vs. Gwalior Raeyon Silk Mfg (Wvq.) Co. {(1973) 2 SCC 713.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with

utmost satisfaction.

9. From the submissions made by the parties the point emerged for

determination of this Court is :-

"Whether the transportation of foreign liquor from State of Madhya

Pradesh to Chhattisgarh after formation of new state in view of the M.P.

Reorganisation Act, 2000 will fall within the category of import and the

petitioners are liable to pay import duty or not?

10. For the determination of this point it is expedient for this Court to extract

relevant provisions of the Reorganisation Act, 2000 and the Excise Act,

1915:-

The Reorganisation Of the State Of Madhya Pradesh:-

2(e) Existing State of Madhya Pradesh means the State of Madhya Pradesh as existing immediately before the appointed day.

2(f) Law include s any enactment, ordinance, regulation, order, bye-law, rule, scheme, notification or other instrument having, immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the existing State of Madhya Pradesh 2(j) Successor State in relation to the existing State of Madhya Pradesh means the State of Madhya Pradesh or Chhattisgarh.

3. Formation of Chhattisgarh State.-- On and from the appointed day, there shall be formed a new State to be known as the State of Chhattisgarh comprising the following territories of the existing

State of Madhya Pradesh, namely:-- Bastar, Bilaspur, Dantewada, Dhamtari, Durg, Janjgir- Champa, Jashpur, Kanker, Kawardha, Korba, Koriya, Mahasamund, Raigarh, Raipur, Rajnandgaon and Surguja districts, and thereupon the said territories shall cease to form part of the existing State of Madhya Pradesh.

4. State of Madhya Pradesh and territorial divisions thereof.-- On and from the appointed day, the State of Madhya Pradesh shall comprise the territories of the existing State of Madhya Pradesh other than those specified in section 3.

5. Amendment of the First Schedule to the Constitution.-- On and from the appointed day, in the First Schedule to the Constitution, under the heading "I. THE STATES", --

(a) in the paragraph relating to the territories of the State of Madhya Pradesh, after the words, brackets and figures, "the Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1959 (47 of 1959)", the following shall be added, namely: -- "but excluding the territories specified in section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000.";

(b) after entry 25, the following entry shall be inserted, namely: -- "26. Chhattisgarh: The territories specified in section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000."

78. Territorial extent of laws-- The provisions of Part II of this Act shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State of Madhya Pradesh shall, until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority be construed as meaning the territories within the existing State of Madhya Pradesh before the appointed day.

79. Power to adapt laws-- For the purpose of facilitating the application in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh or Chhattisgarh of any law made before the appointed day, the appropriate Government may, before the expiration of two years from that day, by order, make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority.

Explanation. -- In this Section, the expression "appropriate Government" means as respects any law relating to a matter enumerated in the Union List, the Central Government, and as respects any other law in its application to a State, the State Government.

80. Power to construe laws-- Notwithstanding that no provision or

insufficient provision has been made under section 79 for the adaptation of a law made before the appointed day, any court, tribunal or authority, required or empowered to enforce such law may, for the purpose of facilitating its application in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh or Chhattisgarh, construe the law in such manner, without affecting the substance, as may be necessary or proper in regard to the matter before the court, tribunal or authority.

85. Effect of provisions of the Act inconsistent with other laws-- The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything in consistent therewith contained in any other law.

86. Power to remove difficulties -- (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the President may, by order, do anything not in consistent with such provisions which appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of removing the difficulty:

Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of three years from the appointed day."

Section 10. of the Exice Act, 1915 : Import of foreign liquor.-

(1)No foreign liquor shall be imported into Madhya Pradesh without prepayment of duty except under and in accordance with no objection certificate and/or a permit to be obtained or issued as described below :-

(a)No-objection certificate for the import of foreign liquor may be granted to FL6 and [FL 10-A]licensees on prepayment of import fee at the prescribed rate. No- objection certificate shall be in Form FL 21.

(b)Import of only those labels of foreign liquor shall be permitted which are registered with the Excise Commissioner under Rule 9.

(c)Excise Commissioner or an officer authorised by him may permit any licensee, to import foreign liquor imported from outside India, subject to prepayment of the prescribed import fee and bottle fee. An FL 9 or FL 9-A licensee may be permitted by the Excise Commissioner to import foreign liquor manufactured outside India in bulk for the purposes of blending without payment of bottle fee. For this purpose no- objection certificate shall be in Form FL 20.

(d)The importer shall apply to the Excise Commissioner or Collector or the authorised Excise Officer of the importing district. The relevant details i.e. the name, address of the importer and his agent at the place of export, quantity, description and alcoholic strength of the liquor, the purpose of import, the unit whence it shall be imported, the location of his licensed premises whereto the imported foreign liquor shall be transported, registration No. of the label etc. shall

be given in the application.

(e)The importer shall attach to his application challans indicating that he has prepaid import fee, or bottle fee or both as the case may be at the prescribed rate in the Treasury of his district.

(f)The Excise Commissioner or Collector or the authorised Excise Officer of the importing district, may, after making necessary enquiries and satisfying himself that there is no objection to the issuance of the certificate, grant and issue no-objection certificate in Form FL 20 or FL 21, as the case may be.

(g)The no-objection certificate granted under clause (f) shall be in triplicate, Part 1 shall be retained in the office of issue, Part II shall be mailed to the authority who may authorise the export and Part III shall be handed over to the applicant.

(h)All importation shall be done on the authority of a valid export-pass granted by the competent authority of the exporting district. All the terms and conditions of such export pass shall be strictly adhered to, by the importer.

(i)The Excise Commissioner may authorise import of such "special liquors" as ingredient for blending purpose by an FL 9 or FL 9-A licensee as he may deem fit without payment of any duty or import fee.

Explanation. - The words "special liquors" shall include "high- bouquet-spirit", cane-juice spirit, sherry, grape spirit, malt-spirit of varying strengths and other specially flavoured spirits for blending purposes.

(2)Import of foreign liquor on prepayment of duty in Madhya Pradesh may be allowed by the Excise Commissioner as indicated below :-

(a)Import of only such labels shall be permitted that are registered with the Excise Commissioner under Rule 9 provided that import of foreign liquor imported from outside India may be permitted even if its label/labels is/are not registered under Rule 9.

(b)No-objection certificate for the import of foreign liquor shall be granted to such licensee or individual as directed by the Excise Commissioner on prepayment of duty and other prescribed fees. While applying for no-objection certificate, the importer shall attach to his application a challan indicating that he has prepaid duty, or other prescribed fee or both, as the case may be, in a treasury of his district.

(c)The no-objection certificate shall be in Form FL 20.

(d)The authority granting no-objection certificate under this sub-rule shall follow the procedure described in clauses (d),

(e), (f) and (g) of sub-rule (1) of this Rule.

11. From the above provisions of law and facts of the case it is not in

dispute that petitioners have imported spirit and malt as defined in

CG Excise Act, 1915. The malt is nothing but fermented liquor.

The spirit as defined in the Excise Act, 1915 means any liquor

containing alcohol obtained by distillation. Section 2(11) defines

import which means to bring in the State. From the plain reading

of the provisions of the Act, 2000 it is quite vivid that by virtue of

Section 3 the new state of Chhattisgarh has been formed with its

territories as specified in the section. By virtue of Section 5 first

Schedule of the Constitution has been amended from the

appointed day i.e. 01.11.2000, entry 26 has been inserted and in

the list of State Chhattigarh has been inserted with specified

territories as specified in Section 3 of the Act. This supports the

submission of the State that the State of Chhattisgarh being new

State, any substances which is brought in the State from the

State of Madhya Pradesh will be imported. Thus, it will not be

intra-State trade but it is inter State trade. The issue of intra-State

and inter-State trade on account of reorganization of State of

Madhya Pradesh as State of M.P. and Chhattisgarh has come up

for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s

State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Lafarge Dealers Association

and Others {(2019) 7 SCC 584} and Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as

under :-

"13. The two States, on the other hand, submit that with effect from the appointed day the new State of Chhattisgarh had come into of existence and hence the trade inter-se or between the territories now forming part of the State of

Chhattisgarh and the reorganised State of Madhya Pradesh would be in the nature of inter-state sales and not intra-state sales. The Sales Tax Act as earlier applicable to the unified State of Madhya Pradesh would be applicable in the reorganised State of Madhya Pradesh and the new State of Chhattisgarh but within the territorial confines and limits of the two States. Therefore, the units situated within the territorial limits/boundaries of the reorganised State of Madhya Pradesh and the new State of Chhattisgarh would continue to enjoy benefit of exemption in respect of intra-state trade within the particular state and not in respect of inter-state trade between the two states. This is the exact purport and meaning behind Section 78 and 79 of the Reorganisation Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sri Peera Mohammad Mahamood Saheb v. The State of Andhra Pradesh {1960 11 STC 456}, which we would advert to at the appropriate stage.

14. Having considered the contention of the parties and in the context of Sections 78, 79, 80, 85 and 86 of the Reorganisation Act, we feel that the stand taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Chhattisgarh is correct and merits acceptance. We have already reproduced the aforesaid provisions and partly interpreted them in paragraphs 9 and 10 and would now proceed to interpret Sections 78 and 79 of the Reorganisation Act. Section 78 of the Reorganisation Act consist of two parts. The first part states that the provisions of the Reorganisation Act shall not be deemed to have affected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed date extends or applies. In other words, the law in force before the appointed date, which in the present case is 1st November, 2000, would continue to apply to the successor or reorganised State of Madhya Pradesh as it existed before bifurcation. This is natural and normal as the laws enacted by the legislature and the executive of the State of Madhya Pradesh would obviously apply to the territories forming part of it after its reorganisation/division. As a result of bifurcation some areas that were earlier part of the State of Madhya Pradesh would now form part of the new State of Chhattisgarh, albeit this would not matter and affect application of the laws as they applied prior to the appointed date to the territories that required a part of the reorganised State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 78, no doubt uses the word 'deemed' but in fact, the first part does not incorporate/create any deeming fiction and rather postulates and states the obvious. However, the second part of Section 78 incorporates a deeming fiction

when it states that territorial references to such law in the State of Madhya Pradesh, i.e. the laws enacted by the legislature and executive of the State of Madhya Pradesh before bifurcation, shall until otherwise provided by the competent legislature or other competent authority be construed as meaning the territories within the existing state of Madhya Pradesh before the appointed day. The effect, thereof, is that the laws enacted by the State of Madhya Pradesh before the reorganisation would continue to apply to the areas forming part of the new State of Chhattisgarh and also the reorganised State of Madhya Pradesh, but within their territorial confines. The enactments or the laws in force in the unified State of Madhya Pradesh would continue to apply to the two states, not as one or the same enactment or law, but as two separate enactments or laws as applicable to two different states.

19. As per the said Article, states are not competent to enact any legislation relating to the taxation of 'inter-state sales', an expression which, in the context of the Constitution, has been subject matter of several decisions explaining the difference between 'intra-state' and 'inter-state' sales. The expression 'inter- state' trade has specific legal connotation and meaning. It refers to transfer or movement of goods from one state to another. Such transactions, notwithstanding that the situs of sale would necessarily be at a fixed location, are inter- state sale or trade and not intra-state sale or trade. Thus, when there is a movement of goods between the two states without there being a transfer of title to the consignor or consignee, compliance would have to be made with the relevant laws applicable to such inter-state transactions. This position will hold good and equally apply in respect of the inter-state sales between the new State of Chhattisgarh and the reorganised State of Madhya Pradesh and vice-versa. The movement of goods from one state to another is in the nature of inter- state sales. The fact that two separate states are formed after the bifurcation, which were once a single entity for the purpose of levying sales tax, would be of no consequence so as to disturb the legal and constitutional impact by which two separate States were created and the legal effect of Article 286 as regards the inter-state character of inter-state transactions.

28. With respect to reasoning given in paragraph 30 in Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we would acknowledge that creation of a new State was an unforeseen event and could give rise to unusual situations, but this cannot be a ground and reason to treat inter-state sales between the two successor states as intra-state sales. This would be contrary to the Constitution and even the Statute i.e. the Reorganisation

Act. Whenever a new State is created, there would be difficulties and, issues would arise but these have to be dealt within the parameters of the constitutional provisions and the law and not by negating the mandate of the Parliament which has created the new state in terms of Article 3 of the Constitution. Creation of the new political State must be given full legal effect. We would, therefore, respectfully overrule the contrary observations and ratio recorded in paragraphs 29 and 30 in Swarn Rekha Cokes and Coals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in light of the legal position elucidated and explained above.

12. From the above stated legal position and the facts of the case, I

am of the view that entry in the State of Chhattisgarh from the

State of Madhya Pradesh even if NOC was given prior to

reorganisation of the State, it will not save the petitioners from

paying the import duty as these circumstances have been caused

due to operation of law and no principle of estoppel is applicable.

Similarly where demand has been made on account of change of

law and by operation of law only.

13. This issue has come up for consideration before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of M/s Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and Others

vs. The State of Haryana and Another {1981 (1) SCC 11}

wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 7 has held as

under:-

7. The second contention is that the Municipality is estopped from levying or recommending the levy of the tax to the Government as in the proclamation of sale it was notified that no Octroi Duty will be levied and it was only in pursuance of such representation, the petitioners purchased the property. We feel this plea should also fail, because the Municipal Committee had no authority to exempt the Fateh Market from the levy of Octroi Duty. If the Municipal Committee had passed a resolution or issued a notification that no Octroi Duty will be levied, it will be ultra vires of the powers of the Municipal Committee. When a public authority acts beyond the scope of its authority the

plea of estoppel is not available to prevent the authority from acting according to law. It is in public interest that no such plea should be allowed.

14. As such the submission made by the petitioners that respondents are

estoppeled from raising demand after issue of NOC is liable to be rejected

and accordingly it is rejected.

15. Thus, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are

dismissed. The interim orders passed by this Court on 13.09.2001 and

26.09.2001 in both the writ petitions are vacated.

16. No order as to cost.

Sd/-

Digitally (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge signed by KISHORE KISHORE KUMAR KUMAR DESHMUKH DESHMUKH Date:

2025.08.01 17:43:29 +0530

Deshmukh