ORDER 1. This is a revision under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act from a decree for Rs. 790 and other reliefs granted by the 4th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in favour of the respondent against the petitioner in a suit for refund of an amount deposited with the City of Jabalpur Corporation towards octroi tax to be held by it as a deposit. 2. Plaint allegations are that the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of Kusner Tile Works, Kusner, having its factory and place of business at Mouza Kusner, Tahsil and district Jabalpur. In the month of April, 1960 she purchased for the purpose of her aforesaid business a new Tata Mercedes Benz Chassis from M/s Pathak Brothers, motor dealers, and took the same to her factory at Mouza Kusner. With a view to build a body over the said chassis, she required to bring it to Jabalpur City, for which she sought permission of the defendant-Corporation. The Corporation granted her the permission on the condition that she deposits Rs. 759 with the Corporation authorities towards the octroi tax to be held by them as a deposit. This she did. She was assured by the Corporation that the said amount of deposit would be refunded to her when she took back the truck to Kusner after the completion of the body. As the chassis was brought to the City of Jabalpur for the purpose only of constructing a body thereon no octroi was legally chargeable, but at the instance of the defendant Corporation, which wanted the amount to be deposited as security, she made the deposit on the aforesaid assurance. The body was built and the truck was taken back to Mouza Kusner and is ever since stationed there. Kusner is beyond the Jabalpur Corporation limits. The Corporation authorities were bound to refund to the plaintiff Rs. 759, which was deposited by her on 20 April 1960 under the aforesaid circumstances. Inspite of repeated demands, the authorities have not refunded the amount of deposit. Assuming, though denying, that the Corporation was entitled to levy octroi tax on the vehicle, it was refundable under Rule 29 (2) of the rules for collection and refund of octroi duty framed by the Jabalpur Municipality (and adopted by the Corporation). The refusal is in violation of the rules adopted by the Corporation. The plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 814. 3. The refusal is in violation of the rules adopted by the Corporation. The plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 814. 3. The suit was resisted on various grounds. It was denied that any permission was contemplated by the rules. No question of seeking or granting permission arose. The allegation that the deposit was made as a deposit and with an assurance, was denied. It was also denied that the chassis was brought to the city of Jabalpur only for the purpose of constructing a body thereon. It was not disputed that after the completion of the body, the truck was taken out on 7 May 1960 from the octroi limits of the defendants, but it was alleged in the written statement that it was not really export, but it was done only as a device to evade octroi duty. The averment that ever since that date the truck was permanently stationed at Mouza Kusner was specifically denied and it was submitted that the truck was found in use within the limits of the defendant-Corporation after the completion of its body. The defendant denied any liability to refund Rs. 759 or any other amount. 4. The learned Additional District Judge, who tried the suit under the Small Cause Courts Act, held that the chassis along with its engine was brought to Jabalpur for the purpose of constructing a body over the chassis; that completion of a body over the chassis cannot to taken as consumption or use of the chassis; that the chassis after constructing the body over it, was exported from the limits of the Jabalpur Corporation on 7 May 1960 and that the truck was used within the limits of the defendant-Corporation. The question was limited to import of the chassis and the engine. Subsequent importing and use of the truck within the limits of the Jabalpur Corporation was not material. He further held that the amount so deposited was a deposit and not recovery of octroi tax; that it would have been octroi tax, had the plaintiff not exported the goods; that it cannot be octroi tax for subsequent use of the truck within the limits of Jabalpur Corporation and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to refund of Rs. 759 deposited under Ex. P-2. 5. 759 deposited under Ex. P-2. 5. The City of Jabalpur Corporation Act, 1948 (Central Provinces and Berar Act III of 1950) and the rules for the collection and refund of octroi duty in the Jabalpur Municipality made under the Central Provinces Municipalities Act, (No. II of 1922), and published in the C.P. Gazette as notification No. 1802-2606-XIII dated 9 April 1929, as amended vide notification No. 4126-1016-M-XIII dated 21-8.1945 and further amended under notification published on 23 May 1952 admittedly govern the present case. 6. Two contentions are raised before me for the defendant-Corporation (1) When by constructing the body over it, the chassis was converted into a truck it was "use or consumption of the chassis." Octroi was, therefore, payable under Rule 9 (c) (i) (a) of the said rules (2). The suit was not maintainable. 7. In my opinion, the second contention must be given effect to. It is undisputed that the defendant-Corporation had power to impose octroi duty and that in fact it imposed it. Shri Verma's contention is that the amount which was deposited was not deposited as octroi, but was merely a security deposit. This contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has not produced the receipt under which she paid the sum of Rs. 759/- on 20 April 1960. It appears that that receipt was delivered to the Corporation authorities when refund was claimed. This is clear from the acknowledgment (Ex. P-2). But it must at once be pointed out that this document (Ex. P-2) is not the original receipt of the payment of Rs. 759/- as appears to have been understood by the learned trial Judge. In all correspondence as also in the plaint, the plaintiff has been saying that the Corporation authorities granted her permission to bring the chassis to Jabalpur city on the condition that she deposited Rs. 759/- towards octroi tax, at the same time giving her assurance that it would be refunded when the truck would be taken back to Kusner after its body was completed. 8. All this apart, Rule 9 (as amended) is very clear. Clause (c) runs thus:- "(c) On the arrival of dutiable articles at an outpost the Moharrir on duty shall call upon the person incharge- (i) To declare whether they are intended. (a) For sale, consumption or use within the Cantonment or the Municipality of Jubbulpore. 8. All this apart, Rule 9 (as amended) is very clear. Clause (c) runs thus:- "(c) On the arrival of dutiable articles at an outpost the Moharrir on duty shall call upon the person incharge- (i) To declare whether they are intended. (a) For sale, consumption or use within the Cantonment or the Municipality of Jubbulpore. (b) For immediate export beyond the limits of Cantonment and the Municipality of Jubbulpore. (c) For temporary detention within the limits of the Cantonment or Corporation of the City of Jabalpur and eventual export." Thus, there may be one of three purposes for bringing the goods within the Corporation limits; (1) when the articles are to be sold, consumed or used; (2) when the articles are to be immediately exported; and (3) when the articles are to be exported after temporary detention, but not immediately. Rule 10 (a) formerly stood as under:- "10 (a) If the articles are stated to be intended for consumption or use within the Cantonment or Municipality of Jubbulpore, the Moharrir shall, on being satisfied as to the correctness of the description, number, quantity or weight and value as given, assess the duty and demand its payment and on such payment being made grant a pass for the articles in the prescribed form." Thus, octroi was to be paid only in the first case and the second case, but not in the third case (where the articles were brought for being exported after temporary detention). Under that unamended rule, it could be said that since on the declaration made the case fell within the third category, the amount deposited was merely a security deposit in order to safeguard the right and interest of the Corporation so that in case the property was eventually found to have been consumed or used, the deposit could be utilised towards payment of octroi. But Rule 10 (a) has also been amended. (See Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated 23 May 1952 Part II (Notifications relating to Local Bodies pate 180). Now it reads thus:- "10 (a) If the articles are stated to be intended for consumption, sale or use within the Cantonment or Municipality of Jubbulpore or for temporary detention and eventual export, the Moharrir shall in the prescribed form." Therefore, under the amended rule, octroi was also to be paid when the articles were brought for temporary detention and eventual export. 9. 9. It must, therefore, be concluded that the present case was within Rule 9 (c) (i) (c) and that the amount which the plaintiff-deposited was deposited as octroi duty under Rule 10 (a). It makes no difference that the octroi was refundable under Rule 29 (1). For refund of octroi, Rule 29 (1) applies to cases falling under clause (a) or (b) of Rule 9 (c) (i). The allowable refund is 3/4 of the duty on the exportation of the dutiable goods outside the municipal limits. Rule 29 (2) reads thus:- "29 (2) On the exportation of goods imported under declaration made under rule 9 (c), duty paid thereon at the time of import shall be refunded in full, provided it is proved to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer that any portion of such goods has not been sold, consumed or used during the period of its temporary retention and that the goods are the same on which duty was paid at the time of import." (Underlined-here italics-by me to emphasise the word duty) At an outpost, on arrival of the dutiable articles for temporary detention and eventual export, what is to be paid is octroi duty and what is subsequently refunded, after fulfilling the prescribed conditions, is also octroi. 10. Now, Rules 32 to 40 prescribe the procedure for such refund. Rules 32 and 36 provide for making an application for a refund. Rule 37 lays down how such an application is to be dealt with. It also provides for preparation of a challan for the amount to be refunded, Rule 38 provides for presentation of the challan and Rule 39 for certification by the Moharrir at the existing post. 11. Section 415 of the City of Jubbulpore Corporation Act, 1948, provides for appeal and revision where a person is aggrieved by any order passed under the Act or under any rule or Byelaw made thereunder. This section has been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in N.T. Co. vs. City of Jabalpur Corporation, 196 JLJ 635= 1961 MPLJ 184 . There, it has been held that an appeal against an order refusing to grant refund is competent under section 415 of the Act and there can be no complaint that there is no remedy provided against refusal on the part of the Corporation to refund octroi duty. 12. vs. City of Jabalpur Corporation, 196 JLJ 635= 1961 MPLJ 184 . There, it has been held that an appeal against an order refusing to grant refund is competent under section 415 of the Act and there can be no complaint that there is no remedy provided against refusal on the part of the Corporation to refund octroi duty. 12. Section 175 of the Corporation Act bars a civil suit. Sub-section (3) of section 175 enacts as follows:- "No refund of any tax shall be claimable by any person otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules thereunder." That being the statutory provision, I am of the opinion that the principle of Firm Radha Kishan vs. Ludhiana Municipality, AIR 1963 SC 1547 , applies to the present case. In that case, the effect of section 86 (2) of the Punjab Municipal Act (No. 3 of 1911) was considered. It provides that no refund of any tax shall be claimed by any person otherwise than in accordance with the Act and the rules thereunder. That section is in pari materia with section 175 (3) of the City of Jubbulpore Corporation Act. Their lordships have held that a civil suit is barred. It has been observed:- "The question is not whether a particular officer abuses his power, but whether a remedy is available under the Act or not." Thus, the remedy being provided in the Act and the rules aforesaid, the present suit did not lie. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relies on Municipal Committee Balaghat vs. Meghraj, 1966 JLJ 53 =ILR 1966 MP 475=AIR 1966 MP 101= 1966 MPLJ 100 . But that decision does not help the respondent. In the present case the imposition or recovery of octroi has not been challenged as ultra vires the statute. 14. The revision is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are set aside. The suit is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs as incurred throughout.