SONY INDIA PVT. LTD Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner company has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 11.12.2007, passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, SAS Nagar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner company against the demand notice dated 15.2.2003, issued by the Municipal Council, Zirakpur, has been dismissed. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal not only on the ground of limitation, but also on merit.

(2.) THE petitioner company is the manufacturer of electronic goods, such as Televisions, Audio Systems, Phones, Handycams, etc. It has a warehouse/store within the limits of the Municipal limits of Zirakpur. The petitioner company brings the goods at Zirakpur for their onward supply to different dealers in Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. Vide letter dated 19.9.2001, the petitioner company had got permission from the competent authority regarding Re-export pass facility under Rule V.32-A, Chapter V of the Municipal Account Code, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1930 Code') by depositing Rs. 10,000/- as refundable security with an undertaking that nothing imported by the petitioner company under re-export pass system shall be sold within the municipal limits of the Notified Area Committee of Zirakpur. When the erstwhile Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur (now the respondent Municipal Council, Zirakpur), noticed that the petitioner company was selling its goods within the municipal limits of the Notified Area Committee of Zirakpur, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner company for payment of an amount of Rs. 17,22,972/-. Thereafter, vide letter dated 11.10.2002, notice for recovery was issued by the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Zirakpur. Against the said letter, an appeal under Section 84 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed, which was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, vide order dated 30.10.2003, on account of non-deposit of the amount of octroi, which was required to be deposited under sub-section (2) of Section 85 of the Act. The said order was challenged by the petitioner company by filing CWP No. 3141 of 2004. Since the petitioner company deposited the disputed amount of octroi, therefore, the said petition was allowed; the order dated 30.10.2003 was set aside and the Appellate Authority was directed to the decide the appeal on merit. During the hearing of the appeal, it was noticed that the said appeal was filed against the letter dated 11.10.2002, which was not an order. Therefore, an application was filed by the petitioner company to challenge the order dated 15.2.2003, in place of letter dated 11.10.2002. The said application was dismissed and the petitioner company was permitted to file an appeal against the said order within 15 days. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 15.2.2003. However, with the appeal, no application for condonation of delay was filed. Accordingly, vide order dated 11.12.2007, the Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal on the ground of limitation as well as on merit. Against the said order, the instant petition has been filed.

(3.) THE contention of counsel for the petitioner company is that though the petitioner company has sold the goods to its distributors having their godown within the Notified Area Committee, Zirakpur, but those goods were ultimately sold by those distributors outside the Notified Area Committee, Zirakpur, i.e. in different towns of Punjab, therefore, the actual consumption of those goods had taken place outside the Notified Area Committee, Zirakpur and thus the petitioner company is not liable to pay the octroi in the area of Notified Area Committee, Zirakpur. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon M/s. Hiralal Thakorlal Dalal v. Broach Municipality and others, AIR 1976 SC 1446 and Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited and another v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Thane and others, 1993 Supplementary (1) Supreme Court Cases 361.