R B SHIRKE BROTHERS Vs. RATNAGIRI MUNICIPAL BOROUGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal against the appellate decree of the District Judge, Ratnagiri allowing the defendant's appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri.

(2.) The appellant-plaintiff is a firm doing transport business with its Head Office at Ratnagiri. The firm owns many trucks. In Dec. 1962, the plaintiff brought two trucks bearing registration Nos. M. H. T. 501 and M. H. T. 502 with goods. The octroi was paid on the goods brought by the trucks but no octroi was paid on the trucks. On 9th Feb. 1963 and 4th April 1964, the Municipal Council issued notices demanding octroi duty on those trucks on the ground that the plaintiff had brought those trucks for use in the octroi limits of the Municipal Council. The plaintiff paid the octroi duty on 16th June 1964 under protest. The appellant then served a notice on the defendant demanding the refund of the octroi stating that the octroi was illegally collected because the motor trucks were not goods and that the plaintiff had not brought those trucks for use in the Municipal limits. The Municipal Council did not refund the amount and the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratnagiri. This suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff had brought those trucks within the octroi limits for use and that the trucks were goods and, therefore, the octroi was validly levied.

(3.) The learned Judge framed necessary issues. The parties led evidence. The learned Judge, after examining the material, came to the conclusion that the defendant has wrongly levied the octroi duty on those two trucks. He, therefore, decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendant, thereafter, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Ratnagiri, who, after hearing the parties, held that the motor trucks were goods as understood by clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act and that the plaintiff had brought those trucks for use within the octroi limits. Therefore, the octroi hag been validly levied. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.