LAWS(P&H)-2010-2-111

DABUR INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On February 03, 2010
DABUR INDIA LTD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 10.10.2002 (Annexure P-7) as well as order dated 23.4.2004 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No. 3 and 1, respectively. A further direction was also sought commanding respondent No. 2 to refund the sum of Rs. 95,77,627/- to the petitioner, which was charged by respondent No. 2 as octroi at Zirakpur.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-company is having head office at Delhi while regional offices at various places in India and other countries. The petitioner is having its regional office at Chandigarh to control the areas of Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh and Jammu and Kashmir. One of the Warehouses of the petitioner-company is at Zirakpur since 1989. According to the petitioner-company, goods are produced in its factory at Sahibabad District Ghaziabad, near Delhi and in Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. Further case of the petitioner-company is that goods/products are supplied to various dealers on the basis of their demand/order received at different branch offices including the branch office at Sector 9, in Chandigarh. For the purpose of making supply to the dealers, goods/products are stored for transit/temporary period at company's godowns at Zirakpur. The Incharge of the godown at Zirakpur sends the products to different places as per demand. The invoices of the goods are prepared at Zirakpur. The goods are transported through various transport agencies. It is further stated that respondent No. 3 wrongly treated this transaction as sale and illegally charged octroi duty from the company at Zirakpur. The petitioner-company challenged the action of the Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur before the Executive Officer and finally before respondent No. 1 who passed the order dated 23.4.2004 by upholding the order passed by the Executive Officer-respondent No. 3 by ignoring all the factual position and law.

(3.) Main contention of the petitioner is that no products/goods are being sold for consumption, use or sale within the municipal limit of Zirakpur. Hence, octroi thereon cannot be charged by respondents No. 2 and 3 and in view of this, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and illegal.