LAWS(SC)-1957-12-9

CENTRAL INDIA SPINNING AND WEAVING AND MANUFACTURING CO LIMITED EMPRESS MILLS NAGPUR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE WARDHA

Decided On December 18, 1957
CENTRAL INDIA SPINNING AND WEAVING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY,LIMITED,THE EMPRESS MILLS,NAGPUR. Appellant
V/S
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE,WARDHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Special Leave against a Judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated February 14, 1950 and the question for decision turns upon the construction of S. 66 (1) (o) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act (Act II of 1922) which in this judgment will be termed the Act.

(2.) A short recital of the facts of the case will suffice for its decision. The appellant is a company which has its spinning and weaving mills at Yeotmal. The appellants' bales of cotton are transported from Yeotmal to Nagpur by road and vehicles carrying them past through the limits of Wardha Municipality. The goods being in transit, the vehicles carrying them do no more than use the road which traverses the municipal limits of Wardha and is a P. W. D. road. The goods are neither unloaded nor reloaded at Wardha but are merely carried across through the municipal area. The Municipal Committee purporting to act under S. 66 (1) (o) of the Act and R. 1 of the rules made thereunder collected Rs. 240 as terminal tax on these goods on the ground that they were exported by the appellant from the limits of the Municipality of Wardha. The appellant thereupon claimed a refund of this sum. On refusal by the Municipality the appellant took an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Wardha which was sent for disposal to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who, on March 11, 1946, referred the following two questions under S. 83(2) of the Act to the High Court for its opinion :

(3.) The reference in the first instance came up for hearing before Sheode, J., who referred the matter to a Division Bench and the Division Bench in turn referred it to a Full Bench. The High Court after referring to a number of decided cases was of the opinion that the tax had been validly imposed and the appellant was therefore not entitled to a refund.