Punjab-Haryana High Court
E.C.E. Industries Limited vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 May, 2012
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No.4002 of 1994 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.4002 of 1994
Date of decision:11.05.2012
E.C.E. Industries Limited .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Samrath Sagar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent No.1.
None for respondents No.2 and 3.
G.S.Sandhawalia J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Annexure P-7 on the ground that the goods of the petitioner have been wrongly assessed as electronic goods instead of electric goods and octroi has been accordingly levied.
2. The petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner company is engaged in the manufacturing of electric transformers having its manufacturing unit at Sonepat and purchased an electrical good namely 'on load tap changer' ( in short OLTC") from M/s On Load Gears, Madras. These electric goods which were required for the manufacture of the transformer were imported by the petitioner company in the municipal limits of Sonepat. When the goods reached in the municipal limits of Sonepat, the incharge of the Octroi Post which was situated at Sonepat disputed the nature of goods imported by the company and thereafter issued Form 0-5 CWP No.4002 of 1994 -2- **** and directed to have the matter decided from respondent no.3 in the office of respondent no.2, who was Superintendent, Octroi, Municipal Committee, Sonepat. It has further been pleaded that earlier the goods were being imported and brought to the municipal limits of Sonepat and the end manufacturing products being transformers and purely electrical goods, and the petitioner company had been paying octroi for the last so many years to respondent no.2 on the basis of goods being electrical and octroi was charged on the basis of weight as required under the schedule of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. Reference was made to the earlier receipts Annexure P-3 to Annexure P-5. Thereafter, in October, 1993, there was sudden change in the attitude of respondent no.2-Municipal Committee, Sonepat and the same very electrical goods were being considered as electronics goods and respondent no.2 started charging octroi on the basis of the value of the goods which is much more than which it should be. The petitioner had explained to respondent no.3 that the goods were infact purely electrical and were being imported into the Municipal limits of Sonepat for the use and consumption in the product which was being manufactured in their company and had shown all the relevant literature and relevant certificate but respondent no.3 imposed the octroi to the tune of ` 20,117.80 paise vide its receipt issued in Form 0-4. Earlier also on 30.10.1993 respondent no.3 imposed octroi to the tune of ` 20,795.52 paise. Accordingly, the action of the respondent has been challenged on the ground that goods are electrical and not electronic.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3, it has been pleaded that matter was referred to the Director, Local Bodies, Haryana and clarification was received that Temperature Control CWP No.4002 of 1994 -3- **** Machine is a scientific and surgical item. All kinds of scientific, mathematical, optical surgical and equipments including telephonic and televisional apparatus and goods and the octroi fixed for these items is to be charged accordingly on temperature Control Machine. The case of the respondents was that octori had been imposed on the value of the goods and not on the basis of the weight of the goods since the item in dispute was electronic surgical item and not electrical item. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner had filed a representation in the form of appeal before the Chairman, Municipal Committee, Sonepat and the same was dismissed and further filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, which is pending and could not be decided since the petitioner had approached this Court when the matter was pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat and was still subjudice.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared to assist the Court on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.
4. That Annexure P-7 placed before this Court which is subject matter of challenge is only Form 0-4 whereby amount of octroi has been assessed at ` 20795.52 paise. The reasoning for assessing the amount is missing in the order impugned. As per Chapter V of the Municipal Account Code, 1930, which pertains to octroi and as per Regulation 63, the appeals against the assessment of octroi made by the Octroi Superintendent are to be made to the Committee. V.63 of the Municipal Account Code, 1930 is reproduced below:-
"V.63 Appeals from assessment of octroi by the Octroi Superintendent - Any person dissatisfied with the assessment of octroi payable in respect of his goods when such assessment CWP No.4002 of 1994 -4- **** is made by the Octroi Superintendent, shall pay the amount of octroi assessed, but may within seven days from the date of such payment appeal to the Committee against such assessment."
5. The Municipal Committee, Sonepat in its reply has stated that the petitioner had filed a representation which was dismissed and further appeal is pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat. The said decision has not been placed on record and accordingly, in such circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat shall take a decision by passing a speaking order on the said demand which had been raised and take into consideration all the material which has been relied upon by the petitioner to decide that whether the octroi has to be imposed on the goods which had been imported after treating them as electrical goods or electronic goods. The said exercise be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
6. Needless to say that if the said appeal is decided in favour of the petitioner, it shall be entitled for the refund of the amount already paid.
7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly since the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy which it had already availed.
11.05.2012 (G.S.Sandhawalia) Pka JUDGE