MORVI MUNICIPALITY Vs. ARUNODAYA MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this appeal revolves around the question whether the suit survey numbers of the respondent No. 1 are situate within or outside the limits of the Morvi Municipality, the appellant.

(2.) Respondent No. 1, original plaintiff, filed a suit for a declaration that the premises of the respondent No. 1-Mills, bearing Survey Nos. 160/1, 161, 162/1, 162/ 2, 163/1, 163/2 and 164/1, described in paragraph 4 of the plaint, are not situate within Morvi Municipal and octroi limits and that the Morvi Municipality is not entitled to recover octroi duty, consolidated property tax, education cess, licence fees or other taxes, fees, etc., from the respondent No. 1-plaintiff. It was further prayed that a decree for refund of Rs. 5,25,112.05 Ps. be passed in favour of the respondent No. 1-plaintiff and against the appellant Municipality. A permanent injunction was sought against the Municipality from recovering any octroi duty and other taxes.

(3.) Respondent No. 1-plaintiff is Public Limited Company. The case of the respondent No. 1 is that it is having its Registered Office at : Vegetable Factory Road, Mahendranagar, Morvi Taluka. Respondent No. 1 purchased these lands and made constructions thereon for its business of running a spinning mill. According to the respondent No. 1, the appellant-Municipality was established for the first time after Independence and the limits of the said Municipality were declared under Secs. 4(1), 4(2) and 5 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, by a Notification of the Saurashtra Government, bearing No. 106, dated 28th February, 1952, declaring the limits of the Morvi Municipality. The Survey Numbers belonging to respondent No. 1, which, according to it, were in the Mahendranagar Village, were not carved out under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code for being included within the limits of the Morvi Municipality. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 in the plaint that it had paid octroi and other taxes to the Municipality under a mistake of law, though the Municipality was not legally entitled to recover these amounts. The claim for refund is confined to the amounts, which were paid to the Municipality during the three years preceding the date of filing of the suit, which is quantified at Rs. 5,24,812.05 Ps. It is contended that even the Mahendranagar Panchayat, the respondent No. 2, who was original defendant No. 2, was collecting taxes from respondent No. 1. It is contended that there cannot be double taxation for the same property or the goods, by two different local authorities. Suit notice was given by respondent No. 1 to the Municipality on 8th June, 1990 for the refund of the aforesaid amount.