ASHOK KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Ashok Kumar inter alia with the prayer that action of the respondents in seizing the Truck carrying goods and the proceedings Dt. 12.08.1997 and the order Dt. 23.08.1997 calling upon the petitioner to pay ten times penalty as per Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Municipality (Octroi) Rules, 1962 together with redetermining of octroi and expenses amounting to Rs. 66,393 be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. Facts of the case are that the petitioner imported goods from Jaipur which were purchased vide original invoice/bills Dt. 11.08.1997. Goods entered the municipal limits of Beawar, District Alwar on 12.08.1997. According to the petitioner, all the informations were given to Octroi Moharrir as per the requirements of Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1962 and octroi duty was paid. The octroi duty was calculated on the basis of original invoice containing signatures of the seller. The amount of Rs. 4,481/ - was paid as octroi by Receipt No. 5985/87 Dt. 12.08.1997. The Truck in which the goods of the petitioner were loaded entered the Beawar city and covered a distance of about 4 kms. from the Octroi post. While the Truck was parked in one side of the road, it was seized by the Revenue Officer in arbitrary manner allegedly for oblique reasons, who then imposed the penalty of ten times by enhancing the valuation of the goods and thereby the octroi and came to the conclusion that petitioner tried to evade the octroi and therefore is liable to pay ten times penalty.

(2.) PETITIONER present in person has referred to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1962 and argued that according to aforesaid Rule, the original invoice bearing the signature of the selling dealer or the dispatching agent was required to be produced at the octroi post. The mandate of the Rule is that such original invoices must be considered valid and accepted as evidence of the value of the goods. Once the original bills submitted by the petitioner was produced and accepted as valid for calculation of octroi in the sum of Rs. 4,481, which was duly paid, the Valuation Officer of the respondent cannot arbitrary exercise same jurisdiction. The bill declared value of the goods to be Rs. 2,24,538, but the Revenue Officer arbitrarily re -assessed the value of the goods to be Rs. 5,21,208 even there is no variation made in the quantity and quality and on that basis came to the conclusion that the octroi amount was required to be paid was Rs. 5,933 rather than Rs. 4,481. Thus the amount of Rs. 1,452 was short paid and on that basis, he has gone to act again arbitrarily by imposing penalty to the extent of ten times, not on the amount of difference but on the total amount of octroi.

(3.) SHRI Rajesh Mootha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the order passed by the Revenue Officer and also the Additional Divisional Commissioner, who rejected the appeal.