SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE SANAWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Santosh Kumar who is a vendor of liquor and has a licence in Form C. S. 2. He obtains his supply of liquor from the warehouse. Before he takes out liquor from the warehouse, he pays as the issue price which is mentioned upon his licence and this issue price has to be deposited in the treasury. In the treasury challan, a form of which has been appended as annexure I to the petition, this issue price has to be bifurcated into the cost price and the excise duty in a particular ratio. The amount is deposited in the treasury and after obtaining a receipt for the whole issue price from the treasury, the petitioner produces that receipt at the warehouse. Against that he receives his liquor. When liquor was imported within the municipal limits of the respondent Municipal Council of Sanawad, the Council imposed an octroi duty. The Council claimed octroi duty on the whole issue price while the contention of the petitioner was that he was liable to pay octroi duty only upon the cost price which he mentions on the treasury challan and the rest being excise duty, he was not liable to pay octroi on the same. Since the Municipal Council did not agree to this, the present writ petition has been filed for a clarification of the position.

(2.) RULE 17 of the Sanawad Municipal Council Octroi rules is as follows : -<img>C:\program Files\regentdatatech\image\np_1046_mplj_1972.jpg</img> The first part of this rule provides that octroi duty will be chargeable on the value of the goods and then it goes on to say that the value of the goods shall be deemed to be the real price which the purchaser has paid to his vendor. In this price the cost of carriage or any commission deducted has not to be added. The rule then further goes on to say that the profits and the duty which the vendor might have added to the price in the bijak which he has issued will be considered to be a part of the price. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case to his vendor, who is the distiller, he pays only the cost price which is mentioned in Annexure- I and the rest is duty which is paid to the Government. He, therefore, does not pay the excise duty to the vendor and the excise duty cannot, therefore, be added to the price for the purpose of the octroi. This part of the rule, in our opinion, would have been applicable to the case if the vendor had issued a bijak and if the vendor himself had realised the price as well as the duty. The system of payment in the case of liquor is entirely different and, therefore, this part of the rule can have no application. For the purpose of this rule what we have to see is the value of the article in the hands of the applicant who has to pay the octroi and who is the importer of the article within the municipal area. Under his own licence he has to pay a fixed amount as the issue price without paying which he cannot receive the goods. Condition no. 2 of the petitioner's licence clearly provides as follows :-

(3.) WE, therefore, see no force in this writ petition and dismiss the same. In view of all the circumstances of the case, however, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.