RAMAN LAL Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OCTROI MUNICIPAL BOARD ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for a writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The applicant carries on a small manufacturing business in Allahabad and for purposes of this business he purchases scrap iron from persons outside Allahabad. In September 1950, he purchased a quantity of scrap iron from a firm in Amritsar at a cost of Rs. 527/4/9. The scrap iron was sent to Allahabad by goods train and the relevant railway receipt and invoice were sent to the applicant by post. On 16-9-1950, the applicant sent the railway receipt and the invoice to the Superintendent of the Octroi Department of the Allahabad Municipal Board with a request that these documents be stamped by the Octroi authorities in accordance with the prescribed rules and then be returned to him in order that he may obtain delivery of the goods from the railway company and avoid payment of demurrage. The Octroi Superintendent refused, however, to stamp the railway receipt and invoice unless the applicant first paid the amount due by way of octroi on the scrap iron which was assessed by the Octroi authorities for the payment of duty at the value of Rs. 1,506/8/-.

(3.) The applicant claims that under the rules the Octroi authorities are bound to stamp and return the railway receipt and invoice to him and are not entitled to make such stamping conditional upon payment of the octroi. The applicant further contends that the basis of assessment adopted by the Octroi authorities is wrong. It is, however, not now in dispute that an importer who is not satisfied with an assessment has a right of appeal to the Board, and as the applicant has made no attempt to avail himself of this remedy, and as it is not shown that such remedy would not be equally beneficial, convenient and effective, it is clear that no relief under Article 226 can be given to the applicant on this part of his claim, which indeed has not been pressed before us.