HAZARIMAL RAWATMAL Vs. COAAUISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPARATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are kirana merchants eatrying on trade in dry fruits, cashewnuts, almonds and almond seeds, kishmish, copra, pishta and several varieties of apices like, zeera, shaaeera, poppy seeds (kaskas) etc.. They have been importing these articles from outside the limits of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation by rail as well as by motor lorries. These articles were packed in gunny bags or mats or carried in baskets, and were not till recently subjected to payment of octroi duty. But some time towards the end of the year 1963, the octroi staff at the different check-posts of the Corporation stopped these goods and demanded payment of octroi duty in respect of them in spite of the protest of the petitioners that the articles were not dutiable. In some cases, the vehicles in which these articles were carried were prevented from entering the limits of the corporation, on the ground of non-payment of octroi duty.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that none of the goods mentined, above is liable to payment of octroi duty. Nobody thought fit to levy octroi duty on them till 19th, October 1963 when the Commissioner of the corporation (respondent) issued Circular Instruction No. 53 directing the octroi staff to levy octroi duty on these articles. The Circular Instruction relied upon an opinion given by the Advocate General that all these articles are dutiable, The petitioners' claim is that none of these articles comes under Schedule 'H' to the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said schedule enumerates the articles on which octroi duty can be lieved. But the articles mentioned above are not included in that schedule. Therefore the sction of the octroi staff in pursuance of the Circular Instruction No. 53 issued by the respondent was illegal and devoid of jurisdiction. In the crcumstrances the petitioners ask for a writ of mandamus to restrain from levying- octroi duty in respect of articles in question.

(3.) The respondent-Commissioner resists these petitions on the main ground that the articles referred to by the petitioner clearly fall within schedule 'H' of the Act.