D K ENTERPRISES Vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the auction purchaser under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising a question as to who should bear the liability of the payment of octroi payable to the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (the Corporation) on the goods auctioned by the Commissioner of Customs, which were stored with the Central Warehouse Corporation (Warehousing Corporation), Mumbai for a period more than one year. FACTUAL BACKDROPS:-

(2.) The factual backdrops giving rise to the aforesaid question is in narrow compass:- On 18th October, 2002 an advertisement appeared in a daily newspaper known as "Mumbai Samachar", informing the public at large that the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai through their authorized auctioneers will sell by public auction various items listed in the Catalogue published. The petitioner accordingly participated in the public auction held on 24th October, 2002 and adjudged highest bidder for the goods known as "Die Blocks pertaining to Quality Din 1.274" (Assorted Sizes and Weights) weighing 179.838 M.T. at the rate of Rs.56,205/- per M.T. and paid sum of Rs.25,27,000/- as earnest money and thereafter paid balance amount of Rs.75,80,795/-. Thus, the petitioner paid total sum of Rs.1,01,07,795/- towards the value of the goods purchased in the public auction held on 24th October, 2002.

(3.) The petitioner vide its letter dated 25th October, 2002 approached the Municipal Corporation for moving and shifting the goods bought in public auction. In reply, the Corporation vide its letter dated 27th October, 2002 refused to issue escort pass asked for by the petitioner for want of payment of octroi payable on the goods since goods were not cleared within a period of one year from the date the goods lodged in the warehouse. The petitioner in reply did not accept its liability to pay the octroi duty contending that it was the liability of the Customs Department and/or that of the Central Warehouse Corporation since goods belonged to them. None of them was willing to accept the contention of the petitioner. As such the petitioner filed present petition seeking directions against the respondents to release goods without payment of octroi and prayed for determination of the question with regard the liability to pay octroi to the Municipal Corporation.