LAWS(P&H)-2013-12-165

SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On December 19, 2013
The Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited Appellant
V/S
The State Of Haryana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for quashing of Annexures P -3, P -5, P -7, P -8 and P -11 i.e., notices issued by the Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar demanding payment of enhanced rate of octroi on sugarcane imported into the territorial limits of Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the State of Haryana issued notification dated 22.11.1995 and corrigendum dated 8.7.1996 enhancing the levy of octroi from 5 Ps. to 50 Ps. per quintal but as the "Municipal Committee" has not passed a resolution accepting the aforesaid notification, as required by Section 75(2) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act) nor has the State of Haryana passed order in terms of Section 75(3) of the said enactment, the demand for additional octroi raised by the Municipal Council is null and void for want of a resolution by the Municipal Committee and an order by the State Government.

(2.) COUNSEL for the Municipal Council admits that the Municipal Committee did not pass a resolution in terms of Section 75(2) of the Act but states that as the Municipal Council has implemented notification, issued by the Government, by passing orders requiring payment of octroi at 50 Ps. Per quintal, the demand for enhanced octroi cannot be said to be illegal. It is further submitted that the absence of a resolution is a mere a formality that cannot be pressed into service to set aside the enhancement of tax duly notified by the State Government. It is further contended that even otherwise as the petitioner has paid this amount and octroi is no longer leviable in the State of Haryana, the writ petition is infructuous. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any refund as it has not pleaded that it has not passed on the burden of octroi paid, to its purchasers, thereby rendering its prayer for grant of refund untenable much less acceptable.

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and considered the relevant provisions.