SONGADH GROUP GRAM PANCHAYATSONGADH Vs. RANIANLAL ISHVERLAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 178 (1) (ii) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, empowers the Gram Panchayat and a Nagar Panchayat, subject to any general or special order (including an order fixing the minimum and maximum rates of a tax or fee) which the State Government, may make in this behalf to levy octroi tax on animals or goods or both brought within the gram or nagar for consumption, use or sale therein. R. 3 of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1964, deals with "procedure for levying tax and fee" and since the scope of the rule and its application are matters in controversy here, we extract the abovesaid rule: "3. Procedure for levying tax or fee. Before deciding to levy a tax or fee every panchayat shall observed the following procedure, namely:_

(2.) The Short question that arises Jot decision in the Second Appeal concerns the application of R. 3 (b) to the ease. The appellants Gram Panchayats resolved to levy octroi duty at a meeting held on 29th March 1967 and in accordance with R. 3 (b) issued a notice to the public. This notfication was on 31-3-1967, followed later by a notification in a local Gujarati newspaper on 9-41967. The notification as translated in English, the correctness of which translation is not disputed by both sides, reads:

(3.) The suit out of which the second appeal has arisen was filed by a person who is said to have paid octroi duty levied on him and his prayer was for refund of such duty paid and also for a declaration that such octroi duty was not properly levied. He purported to sue on behalf of himself and others like him who had paid octroi duty, under 0. 1, R. 8 of the Civil P. C. The suit was dismissed but this was reversed in appeal, consequent upon which he has been given a decree for recovery of the amount said to have been paid by him. He had, in the plaint, made a general attack to the levy 'of the duty by' notification challenging it on the ground that all the formalities required by law to be observed were not observed. Naturally, this was refuted by a general denial by the defendantspanchayats. But, at the hearing before the appellate Judge, the point specifically taken as to the invalidity was that R. 3 (b) of the Rules was contravened in the case inasmuch as the notification issued under that rule did not specify the date as required by the rule. This contention evidently appealed to the Court below and on that approach, the notification and the consequent levy have been found to be illegal.