(1.) THIS second appeal is from concurring decrees in the two Courts below, dismissing the suit of the appellants for an injunction against the levy by the municipal Committee, Piparia, of an octroi tax which, it is contended, was illegally imposed. The two Courts below held that the impost was valid and dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal.
(2.) THERE existed in the Piparia Municipality a terminal tax from the year 1916. On 5-2-1949, the Committee resolved to impose octroi tax. On 17-3-1949, the committee adopted the rules regulating assessment, collection and refund of octroi tax and the draft rules were published in the Gazette on 28-4-1949 as required by Section 67 (2) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (hereinafter called the Act ). The Committee adopted the final proposals on 27-7-1949 and forwarded them to the Provincial Government as required by Section 67 (4) of the Act. The rules for the assessment, collection and refund of octroi tax, as finally adopted by the committee, were sanctioned by the Provincial Government and published in the gazette on 4-11-1949 vide notification No. 4638-4865-M-XIII, dated 15-8-1949. On 12-10-1949, the Provincial Government issued a notification No. 4571-4865-MXIII, published in the same issue of the Gazette, by which it declared the rules for the imposition of octroi by the municipality in supersession of the rules of terminal tax. The notification purported to be under Section 67 (2) of the Act but by a corrigendum it was altered to Section 67 (5) of the Act. In fact, the relevant provision is Section 67 (7) of the Act. The Committee then proclaimed in the town that octroi would be levied from 1-12-1949 and the levy and collection began.
(3.) THE appellants are affected by the tax and their case is that since both the terminal and octroi taxes cannot co-exist, the first had to be abolished and the other imposed in accordance with law. The appellants contend that on both the limbs there is breach of the law.