MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, WARDHA Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD, WARDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The Municipal Council of Wardha has filed this revision application against the order of the Sessions Judge, Wardha, allowing Criminal Revision Application of the Zilla Parishad, Wardha, against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Second Court, Wardha.

(2.) The respondent, Zilla Parishad of Wardha, purchased two Ambassador cars on 2-8-1965 at Nagpur and took them to Wardha. In the same manner, a third Ambassador oar was purchased on 26 11-1965 and the fourth one on 23-2-1966. All these purchases were effected at Nagpur and the cars were taken to Wardha by road. The Municipal Committee, Wardha, claimed octroi tax on these lour vehicles according to the rates prescribed in its schedule. It served a notice under section 150 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 on 11-7-1966. Uuder that notice, the octroi dues amounting to Rs. 1,372.72 P. were claimed. The notice also said as required by section 150 that an appeal may be preferred by the Zilla Parishad under section 169 within the time prescribed by section 170.

(3.) The Zilla Parishad is of the view that no octroi dues could be claimed from it. It has various reasons to allege for claiming that no tax could be levied on the cars. The merits of those contentions are not relevant at the moment. Being aggrieved with the bill presented, the Zilla Parishad filed an appeal before the Judicial Magistrate on 22-7-1966. This appeal is within time prescribed by section 170(a). However, the Zilla Parishad did not mane payment of the tax before presentation of the appeal, or within 15 days from the date of service of notice. Later on, it made payment on 16-12-1966. A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal was raised by the Municipal Committee. The learned Magistrate heard the parties in the matter of the maintainability of the appeal. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that Dot only it was obligatory to file the appeal within 15 days from the date of presentation of the bill complained of, but within that time of 15 days, the amount of the bill ought to have been deposited by the Zilla Parishad in the Municipal Office. This was the requirement of clause (c) of section 170. Since this was not done, the appeal was incompetent. He rejected the appeal.