NARAN LALA LTD Vs. A N KHATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short fact of the present petition is that the petitioner, who is a tax payer, had the grievance against the action of Octroi contractor in recovering amount of octroi on and behalf of respondent No. 2 municipality. The Octori Contractor is respondent No. 3 herein. Initially, the petitioner preferred Special Civil application No. 10114 of 1999 before this court, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 11. 7. 2001 and the petitioner was relegated to approach before the collector, Navsari on the item as to whether octroi is leviable on particular goods vide clause 30-A or 30-B and the Collector was directed to decide the same within stipulated time limits. It appears that the petitioner did approach to the Collector under Section 258 of the Gujarat Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), pursuant to the order passed by this Court. However, the District Collector took the view that there is no power with him to decide the question and therefore, he rejected the application of the petitioner, at that stage the petitioner preferred present petition.

(2.) IT appears that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the present petition, the District Collector has exercised the power under Section 258 of the Act after he had tendered apology and reheard )the matter. After rehearing, the Collector had passed order on 24. 4. 2002, whereby he had decided the question as to whether the item concerned would fall in the Clause 30-B or 30-A of the Schedule. He had observed that the parties to act accordingly, but there is no clear direction by him for refund of the amount and if yes, to what extent and what is the quantification of the amount. As the petition was pending, the petitioner has : approached by bringing about the amendment challenging the second order of the Collector so far it relates to not giving clear direction to refund the amount. It has been also contended that items no. 76,81,97,98, and 105 as per the schedule mentioned in the order of the collector will be required to be charged by navsari Municipality and not Vijalpur municipality and therefore, it has been submitted that for such items, the Collector ought to have observed accordingly or in any case, the respondent No. 2 municipality or its agent - respondent No. 3 herein Octroi contractor had no power to collect the octroi and therefore, such amount should also be ordered to be refunded.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Umang Oza, learned assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1, District Collector, Mr. Bharda, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr. B. M. Mangukiya, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 - octroi contractor.