HINDUSTAN COPPER LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following order of the Court was passed by Arun Mishra, J. :-The appellant filed W.P. No. 3253/99 before this Court and the learned single Judge by order dated 20-1-2000 allowed the petition and writ was issued quashing the resolution passed by the respondent No. 2, Municipal Council holding that it was not open to the Municipal Council to charge terminal tax beyond the rate prescribed by the Government under the rules. The rate prescribed was O.10% whereas by resolution of respondent No. 2, tax was imposed at the rate of 0.50% which was quashed. It was held that the Municipal Council shall be free to revise the demands in accordance with the rates prescribed by the circular and shall give due credit of the amount already deposited by the appellant in this behalf.

(2.) The appellant/petitioner is still aggrieved as the entire recovery has not been quashed. According to the appellant, the Municipal Council is not competent to imposed terminal tax on transportation of copper concentrate.

(3.) The petitioner came to the Court on various grounds. The learned single Judge has considered the rules framed by the State Government called "The Terminal Tax (Assessment and Collection) on the Goods Exported from Madhya Pradesh Municipal Limits Rules, 1956." In the Schedule to the Rules under Item No. 15 "Other local products' terminal tax, based on the basis of price, chargeable is 0.10%. Before the learned single Judge submission was raised that State cannot impose any tax on copper concentrate, it being not an item mentioned in the Schedule. The ground that the State is not competent to impose any tax on copper concentrate was not raised in the petition, nor validity of Section 127 of the Municipalities Act was challenged. Under the residuary entry at Sl. No. 15 of Rules the Municipality has been left free to levy terminal tax on 'other local products except edible oil. It is not disputed that copper concentrate is a local product and it would be included in'other local products as mentioned in Entry No. 15 of the schedule. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that copper concentrate is a central subject, hence the State is no competent to prescribe the rate nor is the Municipal Council. However, the State's power and the provision of law under which it was imposed have not been challenged. Moreover, even if the Union is having the right to make regulations in respect of marketing of copper concentrate, that does not by itself in any way immune the right of the State to impose the tax. There may be double taxation but the two events are different. Entry goods in a local area and import of goods from the local area is one event which takes place in that particular area and in the instant case terminal tax is on the local product and it is imposed as revenue for performing mandatory duty by the Council.