KOTHARIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Gram Panchayat and was collecting octroi from Respondent No.2 since 1992-93. Respondent No.2 claimed octroi exemption on the ground that it is 100% export oriented unit and, therefore, entitled to the exemption under Rule 36(1)(r) of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats Tax and Fees Rules, 1964. It appears that upon the application of the petitioner, initially the matter was considered by the District Development Officer and the Gram Panchayat was informed to take necessary action in this regard. It was also opined by DDO vide letter dated 20.2-1997 that Respondent No.2 is 100% export oriented unit and entitled for the exemption from payment of octroi. The documents were submitted by Respondent No.2, but the petitioner Panchayat denied the same, observing that the item of C.R. Sheet is not engineering goods and other items No.2 to 10 were treated as engineering goods and, therefore, the octroi on that item was collected. It appears that the respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the State Government on 8.5.1997 praying for intervention and passing necessary orders for exemption and refund of the amount of octroi already paid. The said letter was treated for exercise of the revisional power by the State Government and ultimately after hearing the petitioner Panchayat on 30.6.1997 the State Government passed the order, whereby the decision of the Gram Panchayat vide resolution dated 12.9.1996 was cancelled and it was further ordered that the refund of Rs.7,94,508/- be made to Respondent No.2 Company by the Gram Panchayat. Under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by preferring the present petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr.Mehta, learned Counsel for Mr.Lakhani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Soni, learned AGP for the respondent No.1.

(3.) Mr.Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the contention that for eligibility of exemption, as per rule, the necessary certificate is required to be issued and he submitted that the said certificate must be with the approval of the Secretary of the Ministry of Commerce of Government of India and since there is no such certificate produced, the exemption cannot be claimed. The said contention deserves to be rejected on the face of it in as much as the certificate is already produced by Respondent No.2 together with the affidavit-in-reply ? Annexure ? III colly dated 29.6.1992 and vide Clause No.27 of the conditions attached to the letter of Intent, it has been also expressly provided that the application of the industrial undertaking is approved by the specially constituted Board of approval for 100% export oriented undertaking formed under resolution No.8/15 (78/EP) dated 31.12.1980 issued by the Ministry of Commerce. In any case, the certificate is issued by the Government of India for 100% export oriented unit and when the certificate is not under challenge, such a contention even otherwise also cannot be accepted.