Bombay High Court
Union Of India & Another vs Municipal Commissioner Ngp & Others on 14 June, 2016
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
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 ::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:20:51 ::: wp3547.03 2 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 ::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:20:51 ::: wp3547.03 3 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 ::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:20:51 ::: wp3547.03 4 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.
::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:20:51 :::