STATE OF GUJARAT v. ANGADIA KANTILAL SOMABHAI — 1981 DIGILAW 100 (GUJ)

A. M. AHMADI, J. ( 1 ) IN these three appeals the question of general importance which arises for our determination is (i) whether a firm of Angadias can be said to be importers of goods within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Octroi Rules framed under sub-sec. (7) of sec. 457 read with sub-sec. (1) of sec. 149 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) and if yes (ii) whether it can be called upon to furnish the information required by the requisition notice issued as per Schedule I appended to the Rules. In order to decide this question it is necessary to refer to few provisions of law which have a bearing on the point at issue. ( 2 ) SEC. 127 (2) of the Act empowers the Municipal Corporation to impose taxes specified in sub-sec. (i) of the said section Octroi is one of the taxes specified in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 127 of the Act. Sec. 149 (1) enacts the procedure to be followed for levying the taxes specified in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 127 of the Act. That section lays down that in the event of the Corporation deciding to levy any of the taxes specified in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 127 it shall make detailed provision in so far as such provision is not made under the Act in the form of rules modifying emplifying or adding to the rules at the time in force for any of the mat- ters catalogued in clauses (a) to (e) of that sub-section Under clause (a) rules can be made in regard to the nature of the tax the rates thereof the class or classes of persons articles or properties liable thereto and the exemptions therefrom. if any to be granted and under clause (b) rules can be made in regard to the system of assessment and method of recovery and the powers exercisable by the Commissioner or other offi- cers in the collection of the tax. if any to be granted and under clause (b) rules can be made in regard to the system of assessment and method of recovery and the powers exercisable by the Commissioner or other offi- cers in the collection of the tax. Sec. 454 next provides that the Corpo- ration may add to the Schedule A rules not inconsistent with the provi- sions of the Act (which expression shall in this section be deemed not to include the said Schedule A) to provide for any matter dealt with or for any of the purposes specified in the said Schedule; and may subject to the same limitations amend alter or annul any rule in the said Schedule A. Sub-sec. (7) of sec. 457 provides for making rules in regard to the assessment and recovery of municipal taxes the conditions on which refunds of municipal taxes shall be allowed and in respect of a tax leviable under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 127 the matters referred to in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 149. Therefore in exercise of the power conferred by sub-sec. (7) of sec. 457 read with sub-sec. (1) of sec. 149 of the Act the Corporation framed Rules known as the Ahmedabad Municipal Cor- poration Octroi Rules (hereinafter called the Rules ). Rule 11 with which we are concerned reads as under :"11 If the Commissioner or any other Officer authorised in this behalf is of opinion or has reason to believe that it is necessary in the interest of Municipal Revenue to issue a requisition notice as per Schedule 1 or in such a form as may be prescribed by the Municipal Commissioner from time to time may issue the same asking any owner or importer of goods or any person connected with the import of goods to return it duly filled in and signed by him within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. The person who is required by a written notice so to do shall fill in correct details and submit a true account of the goods imported by him. The Commissioner or the Officer authorised may require of the said person to produce before him any accounts or documents and to furnish any information relating to the import of goods or any other information in connection therewith as may be required together with the copies or extracts from such documents etc. The Commissioner or the Officer authorised may require of the said person to produce before him any accounts or documents and to furnish any information relating to the import of goods or any other information in connection therewith as may be required together with the copies or extracts from such documents etc. as appear to him to be necessary. The octroi duty found due on the information received as per requisition notice or when such information is believed to be incorrect on such other authentic information as may be obtained shall immediately be paid by the said person on demand. If the amount so demanded is not paid on demand it shall be recovered as if it were a tax by process of recovery as provided in Chapter VIII (Rules of the Schedule appended to Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act LIX of 1949)". On a plain reading of this rule it becomes clear that the Commissioner or the officer authorised in this behalf must be of opinion or must have reason to believe that it is necessary in the interest of Municipal Revenue to issue a requisition notice as per Schedule I calling upon any owner or importer of goods or any person connected with the import of goods to return it duly filled in and signed within 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. Therefore once the required satisfaction is reached a requisition notice can be addressed to the owner or importer of goods or any person connected with the import of goods. Such a person can be required to produce before the Commissioner or the authorised officer any accounts or documents and to furnish any information relating to the import of goods or any other information in connection there-with as may be required. Therefore according to this rule the notice or requisition can be issued to (i) the owner; or (ii) the importer of goods or (iii) any person connected with the import of goods. The expression importer of goods is not defined by the Rules but the term import according to Rule 2 (a) means conveying into octroi limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation any article or goods from any other area. The expression importer of goods is not defined by the Rules but the term import according to Rule 2 (a) means conveying into octroi limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation any article or goods from any other area. therefore if a person brings any article or goods which is liable to octroi duty or tax from outside the Municipal limits within the Municipal Corporation limits he can be said to have imported the goods within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of the Rules. In the context of this definition of the term import found in Rule 2 (a) of the Rules it is not difficult to define an importer of goods. one who imports goods within the meaning of this Rule can be said to be an importer of goods. According to Websters Dictionary importer means one who imports. According to Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Third Edition) the term importer means one who or that which imports or introduces. Therefore any person who brings goods from outside the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation limits within the Municipal Corporation limits is for the purposes of these Rules an importer of goods. Such an importer of goods can be served with a requisition notice as per Schedule I to the Rules calling upon him to furnish the particulars set out therein. ( 3 ) SEC. 466 empowers the Commissioner to make Standing Orders consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and bye-laws in respect of : (A) prescribing nakas for the collection of octroi and tolls; (B) regulating the made and manner in which octroi and tolls shall be collected; (C) determining how octroi shall be collected when no reliable evidence is availa- ble of the value of the goods imported; (D) regulating the stamping sealing or otherwise marking of imported goods; (E) prescribing the manner in which refunds of octroi shall be claimed or made and the conditions under which agents shall be recognised and for obtaining refunds of octroi; (F) determining the supervision under which the routes by which and the time within which goods intended for immediate exportation shall be conveyed out of the City and the fees payable by persons so conveying the goods; and (G) any other matter relating to the collection of octroi which is not provided for in the Act. It must immediately be noticed that the power to make Standing Orders is circumscribed by the condition that they must be consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the by laws framed under the Act. In exercise of this power the Municipal Commissioner of Ahmeda- bad framed the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Octroi Standing Orders (hereinafter called the standing Orders ). Standing Order 2. 7 lays down that the term import shall mean the conveying of any goods into Ahmedabad Municipal Limits from any other area. This definition is quite consistent with the definition of the term import found in Rule 2 (a) of the Rules. Standing Order 2. 9 defines an importer as under :"importer shall mean the person who imports the goods into Ahmedabad Muni- cipal Limits and shall also include the person who owns the goods at the time of import or whose name is entered in the import bill as importer It shall also include (i) the person who takes delivery of the goods or articles when imported by rail or by air or by a vehicle of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (ii) in case of goods imported through post the person to whom the goods are delivered by postal department; and (iii) the person or the body or persons doing the business of Angadia. "therefore by this definition a person doing the business of Angadia is an importer of goods. If this definition is consistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules there can be no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that a firm carrying on business of Angadias can be served with a requisition notice as per Schedule I under Rule 11 of the Rules. ( 4 ) SEC. 399 provides the penalty for failure to comply with the requisition under Rule 11. It lays down that whoever contravenes any provision of the Act or Rule by law regulation standing order licence permission or notice issued thereunder or fails to comply with any requisition lawfully made under any such provision shall if no penalty is provided in any other provision of the Act for such contravention or failure be punished for each such offence with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees and with further fine which may extend to twenty rupees for every day on which such contravention or failure continues after the first conviction. In the backdrop of these provisions of law we may own proceed to answer the point and posed for our decision. ( 5 ) IN order to answer the principal point arising in these three appeals it would be advantageous if we bear in mind the relevant facts of these three appeals. In Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 1979 the respon- dent-accused is one Angadia Kantilal Somabhai. The Octroi Inspector of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation filed a complaint against him alleging that even though he was called upon by a requisition notice as per Schedule I of Rule 11 of the Rules to furnish particulars in respect of imports made during the period from 1/02/1975 to 31/12/1975 he failed to do so within the prescribed period after the receipt of the requisition and had therefore committed an offence punishable under sec. 399 of the Act read with Rule 11 of the Rules. In appeal No. 326 of 1979 the respondent-accused in one Naranbhai Shan- kerbhai. He too was called upon by a similar notice to furnish information regarding the imports between 1/01/1976 and 30/06/1976 but he failed to do so within the prescribed period after the receipt of the requisition and had therefore committed a similar offence. In the last Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1979 the accused Angadia N. Rajaram Nagardas was called upon by a similar requisition notice to furnish particulars in respect of goods imported between 1/01/1975 and 31/12/1975 which he failed to do within the prescribed period after the receipt of the requisition and therefore committed a similar offence. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted all the three accused and directed them to pay a fine or Rs. 25. 00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Against the order of conviction the three accused persons preferred separate appeals which were disposed of by the learned City Sessions Judge Ahmedabad by his judgment and order dated November 28 1378 The learned City Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that even though by the definition of Standing Order 2. Against the order of conviction the three accused persons preferred separate appeals which were disposed of by the learned City Sessions Judge Ahmedabad by his judgment and order dated November 28 1378 The learned City Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that even though by the definition of Standing Order 2. 9 Angadias were importers they could not be said to be importers of goods within the meaning of the Rules and therefore they could not be called upon by a requisition notice as per Schedule I of Rule 11 to furnish the relevant information regarding the import of goods during the period mentioned in the respective requisition notices. He pointed out that even though the expression importer was defined by Standing Order 2. 9 there was no such definition to be found in Rule 2 of the Rules and therefore it was not possible to import the Standing Order definition for the purpose of determining the scope and ambit of Rule 11 of the Rules. While deciding the question whether a person or a firm carrying on business of Angadia can be said to be an importer within the meaning of Rule 11 the learned City Sessions Judge also referred to the language of Schedule I wherefrom he concluded that the requisition notice under Schedule I can only be served upon the owner and not the person who imports the goods within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. He was also of the opinion that if Angadias are required to furnish such information as is required by Schedule I of Rule 11 of the Rules it would cause considerable hard- ship to them because such information would be within the special knowledge of the owners and not the Angadias who are merely carriers of goods. In this view that he took he came to the conclusion that the respondents accused who were indisputably carrying on business as Angadias in the City of Ahmedabad at all material times could not be said to be importers of goods within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Rules and therefore it was not open to the Commissioner or the authorised officer to serve them with requisition notices as per Schedule I calling upon them to furnish the particulars set out in the various columns of that notice within 15 days from the receipt thereof. He therefore acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge levelled against them. ( 6 ) WHILE pointing out that it was not strictly necessary to go into the question whether the satisfaction for the issuance of a requisition under Rule 11 was reached by the Commissioner or the authorised officer relying on a decision of B. J Divan J. (as he then was) in G. H. Saiyed v. Sitaben (1972) 13 G. L. R. 260 the learned City Sessions Judge held that the authority issuing the requisition notices in the present three cases did not have the necessary material before him wherefrom he could have reason to believe that it was necessary in the interest of municipal revenue to issue the requisition no ices as per schedule I and therefore even on that ground the requisition notices were bad in law and the accused could not be convicted for falling to comply therewith. In this view that he took he allowed all the three appeals set aside the order of conviction recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and acquitted the three respondents of the charge levelled against each of them. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned City Sessions Judge in the aforesaid three appeals the State has preferred the present three appeals. ( 7 ) THE Act does not define the expression import or importer of goods. However Rule 2 (a) defines import to inter alia mean the conveying into Octroi limits of the Municipal Corporation from any other area. The Standing Order 2. 7 also defines the expression import to mean the conveying of any goods into Ahmedabad Munici- pal limits from any other area. The expression importer of goods is not defined by the Rules. Rule 3 which is made subject to the provisions of the Act lays down that an octroi on all goods of the description in Schedule A shall on the import thereof be payable to the Corporation at the rate specified for such goods respectively in the said Schedule. Rule 4 then enumerates the exceptions to Rule 3. Rule 5 requires the table of rates of octroi to be affixed at certain places. Rules 6 to 10 deal with the collection of octroi with which we are not concerned. Rule 11 which has been quoted earlier deals with the issuance of a requisition notice as per Schedule I to the Rules. Rule 5 requires the table of rates of octroi to be affixed at certain places. Rules 6 to 10 deal with the collection of octroi with which we are not concerned. Rule 11 which has been quoted earlier deals with the issuance of a requisition notice as per Schedule I to the Rules. Rule 12 deals with refund of octroi and Rule 13 states how much of the octroi paid should be refunded. This is in brief the scheme of the Rules. ( 8 ) IT becomes clear from the definition of the term import found in Rule 2 (a) and Standing Order 2. 7 that if a person conveys or brings goods into Ahmedabad Municipal limits from any other area it would amount to importing goods into Ahmedabad Municipal limits. Any person who conveys goods into Ahmedabad Municipal limits from any other area would therefore be an importer of goods. According to the dictionary meaning indicated earlier one who imports goods is an importer of goods Nowhere in the Rules has it been mentioned that only the owner of the goods will fall within the expression importer of goods. The expression importer is defined in Standing Order 2. 9 reproduced earlier. This definition must be consistent with the Act and the Rules in view of the language of sec. 466 of the Act. Once it is held from the definition of the term import that an importer of goods is that person who conveys goods into Ahmedabad Municipal limits from any- other area outside the said limits there is no reason to limit the scope of the said expression by holding that an importer of goods is only that person who owns the goods. Such words of limitation are not found in the Act the Rules or the Standing Orders. In fact the Standing Order definition of importer makes it clear beyond any manner of doubt that even an Angadia who imports goods into Ahmedabad Municipal limits would be liable to pay octroi at the Octroi Naka unless delivery of the goods is obtained by the owner at the said Octroi Naka. The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment observes that ordinarily an Angadia would not fall within the term importer and therefore he is specifically sought to be included within the meaning of that expression by Standing Order 2. 9. The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment observes that ordinarily an Angadia would not fall within the term importer and therefore he is specifically sought to be included within the meaning of that expression by Standing Order 2. 9. Now There is no justification having regard to the definition of the term import in the Rules as well as the Standing Order to take the view that ordinarily an Angadia cannot be said to be an importer of goods. If an Angadia brings goods within the Ahmedabad Municipal limits from any other limit he would be an importer of goods within the meaning of the Rules as well as the Standing Order 2. 9. The difini- tion in the Standing Order is therefore quite consistent with the Rules framed under sec. 457 read with sec. 149 of the Act. ( 9 ) IT was argued before the learned Sessions Judge that Angadias can be regarded as importers upto the stage of entry of goods within Ahmedabad Municipal limits and no further and therefore they cannot be called upon to answer the requisition issued under Rule 11 of the Rules. In other words it was argued that as soon as the goods were brought within octroi limits and the duty was paid Angadias or carriers of goods ceased to be importers of goods and Rule 11 of the Rules had no application. This argument found favour with the learned Sessions Judge. It is difficult to understand this line of reasoning for the simple reason that having regard to the definition of the expression import in Rule 2 (a) the expression importer in Rule 11 must in the context mean one who imports. That person who brings goods liable to octroi within the Ahmedabad Municipal limits from outside its limits would be an importer of goods The definition in the Standing Order 2. 9 is merely illustrative of persons who can be said to be importers within the meaning of the Rules as well as the Standing Orders. There is no warrant for taking the view that an Angadia who was an importer of goods at the stage of entry ceased to be so on entry and payment of octroi as such words of limitation do not appear in the Rules or the Standing Orders. The argument that an Angadia is an importer within the meaning of Standing Order 2. The argument that an Angadia is an importer within the meaning of Standing Order 2. 9 but he cannot be said to be an importer within the meaning of the Rules is clearly devoid of merit. There is no rationale to come to the conclusion that a person who is an importer of goods within the meaning of the Standing Orders is not an importer within the meaning of the Rules. To take such a view would tent amount to holding that the definition of the word importer in Standing Order 2. 9 is not consistent with the Rules. In that event the definition in the Standing Order would clearly conflict with sec. 466 which says that the Standing Orders must be consi- stent with the Act and the Rules. We are therefore of the opinion that such a dichotomy is not warranted having regard to the provisions of the Rules and the Standing Orders. ( 10 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has relied on the requisition form in Schedule I to come to the conclusion that only the owners of goods would be required to answer the said requisition and an Angadia cannot be required to do so. This conclusion is based on the fact that Schedule I uses the language: You are requested to furnish correct details of imports made by you or on your behalf. This language prima facie gives the impression that the requisition is addressed to the owner and he is asked to furnish correct details of imports made by him or his behalf. Now if an Angadia imports goods through his employee he can be asked to furnish details of imports made through his employee order Schedule I to Rule 11 of the Rules. The form of the requisition cannot be dec- isive of the question whether or not any person other than the owner can be an importer of goods within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Rules. The form of the requisition cannot be dec- isive of the question whether or not any person other than the owner can be an importer of goods within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Rules. Once we come to the conclusion that any person who imports goods within the Ahmedabad Municipal limits is an importer of goods he can be called upon by virtue of Rule 11 to furnish the particulars sought by the requisition notice-Schedule I. The learned Sessions Judge observes that as no time limit is fixed under the Rules within which such a requisition notice can be issued on the importer of goods considerable hardship would be caused to the Angadias if they are required to furnish the particulars as per the columns of the requisition notice after a long lapse of time. Now those who are carrying on the business of Angadias must maintain a register containing the particulars of imports made by them from time to time. Besides if no period of limitation prescribed within which such a requisition notice can be issued under Rule 11 of the Rules the correct interpretation would be that the requisition notice must be issued within a reasonable time which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. This is however no argument to come to the conclusion that Angadias cannot be included within the term importers in Rule 11 of the Rules. Hardship to the Angadias cannot change the meaning to be given to the word importer in Rule 11 of the Rules. The Angadias who are carrying on large scale business of conveying goods into or out of octroi limits of the Municipal Corporation from or to any other area must know that they may be called upon to furnish details as per Schedule I of Rule 11 of the Rules and must therefore maintain proper registers containing those particulars so that they may be able to answer the requisition as and when made by the Corporation. We are therefore of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in coming to the conclusion that Angadias were not importers of goods within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Rules and were therefore not required to answer the requisition contained in Sch- edule I thereof. We are therefore of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in coming to the conclusion that Angadias were not importers of goods within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Rules and were therefore not required to answer the requisition contained in Sch- edule I thereof. ( 11 ) RULE 11 of the Rules provides that if the Commissioner or any other officer authorised in this behalf is of opinion or has reason to believe that it is necessary in the interest of Municipal revenue to issue a requisition as per Schedule I he may do so asking the owner or importer of goods or any person connected with the import of goods to return it duly filled in and signed to him within fifteen days from the receipt of the same. Therefore the sine qua non to the exercise of power under Rule 11 is that the Commissioner or the authorised officer must be of opinion or must have reason to believe that it is necessary in the interest of municipal revenue to issue the requisition as per Schedule I. The opinion can be formed on the basis of material placed before him. In other words he must have reason to believe that it is necessary in the interest of municipal revenue to issue the requisition if the facts and material placed before him justify the same. Diwan J. (as he then was) in G. H. Saiyad v. Sitaben (1972) 13 G. L. R. 260 had occasion to consider the scope and ambit of Rule 11 of the Rules with reference to the requirement of the Municipal Commiss- ioner or his delegate forming an opinion or having reason to believe that it is necessary in the interest of Municipal revenue to issue the requisition in the form in Scheduled I to the Rules. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 295 it was held by our learned brother that there must be objective facts in existence and it is only in light of these objective facts that the opinion can be formed or belief can be entert- ained. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 295 it was held by our learned brother that there must be objective facts in existence and it is only in light of these objective facts that the opinion can be formed or belief can be entert- ained. It was at the same time stated that though it is not open to the Court to examine the sufficiency or adequancy of the grounds if there are no grounds whatever or if the grounds are such as no reasonable person would believe or if the grounds have no rational connection with the subject matter the Court can held that the opinion was not formed or that there was no reason to believe that it was necessary in the interest of Municipal revenue to issue the requisition in the prescribed form. ( 12 ) SO far as the evidence in Criminal Appeals Nos. 325 and 327 is concerned the period covered by the requisition is between 1st Febuary 1975 and 31/12/1975 and 1/01/1975 and 31/12/1975 respectively. The order passed by the Octroi Inspector in Appeal No. 325 of 1979 Exhibit 4 dated 7/06/1977 shows that the respon- dent-accused had imported goods within the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation limits between 1/02/1975 and 31/12/1975. But when we turn to his evidence recorded at Exhibit 3 he does not make any mention whatsoever in his examination-in-Chief about the import of goods during the aforesaid period. instead he refers to the import of goods on 24/03/1977 with which we are not concerned. It transpires from his evidence that the office of the respondent- accused was raided and Rs. 10. 50 were recovered by way of penalty in respect of goods imported on 24/03/1977. In his cross-examina- tion he in unmistakable terms admits that before the issuance of the requisition in the prescribed form no enquiry was made in regard to the activities of the respondent-accused. In the next breath he says that he bad often inquired into the respondents activity of dodging the payment of octroi. He however does not state on what material he formed the opinion or entertained the relief required for issuing the requisition under Schedule I. So far as Appeal No. 327 of 1979 is concerned the evidence of the Octroi Inspector is recorded as P. W. 2 at Exhibit 3. He however does not state on what material he formed the opinion or entertained the relief required for issuing the requisition under Schedule I. So far as Appeal No. 327 of 1979 is concerned the evidence of the Octroi Inspector is recorded as P. W. 2 at Exhibit 3. He deposes that on 10/03/1977 the office of the respondent accused was raided and penalty was recovered in respect of imports made without payment of octroi. The receipts issued in respect of the penalty recovered from the respondent-accused have been produced at Exhibits 9 to 24. He does not make any mention as regards the import of goods during the material period between 1/01/1975 and 31/12/1975 in respect of which requisition under Schedule I of Rule 11 was issued. He does not state from what material placed before him he formed the necessary opinion or entertained the belief that it was necessary in the interest of municipal revenue to issue the requisition in the prescribed form. It is therefore clear that so far as these two appeals are concerned the Octroi Inspector issued the impugned requisitions without the application of mind to the objective facts which were never placed before him. When the Octroi Inspector therefore decided to issue the impugned requisi- tions he had no material or data before him to form the necessary opinion or entertain the necessary belief for the issuance of the requisi- tions in question. In other words the requisitions were issued by the Octroi Superintendent even though no grounds existed for the formation of opinion or for the entertainment of belief that it was necessary in the interest of Municipal revenue to issue the requisitions in question. The decision of the learned Sessions Judge therefore on this ground is unassailable. ( 13 ) SO far as Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 1979 is concerned the relevant period covered by the requisition notice under Schedule I is the import of goods between 1/01/1976 and 30/06/1976. This is clear from Exhibit 4 whereby the Octroi Inspector recorded the satisfaction required for the issuance of a requisition under Rule 11 of the Rules. ( 13 ) SO far as Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 1979 is concerned the relevant period covered by the requisition notice under Schedule I is the import of goods between 1/01/1976 and 30/06/1976. This is clear from Exhibit 4 whereby the Octroi Inspector recorded the satisfaction required for the issuance of a requisition under Rule 11 of the Rules. The evidence of the Octroi Inspector P. W. 2 Rasiklal Dahyabhai Shah is to the effect that when goods are brought at the Octroi Naka if the person importing the goods does not produce the invoice he is required to fill in Form F and pay the octroi on the basis of provisional valuation Lateron on the production of the invoice the octroi recovered is adjusted according to the value shown in the invoice. The respondent-accused also used to fill in Form F and pay the octroi on the basis of the provisional valuation made at the time of import of goods within the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation limits. Four such forms Exhibits 10 to 13 have been produced on the record of the case. These are of the year 1977. The witness however states that similar F Forms of 1976 have also remained uncleared. We do not know the exact period of the year 1976 during which imports were made and duty was paid on the basis of provisional value after filling in Form F at the Octroi Naka. Unfortunately at the time when the evidence of the Octroi Inspector was recorded particulars in this behalf were not sought. Mr. Panchal the learned Public Prosecutor argued that in view of the decision in G. H. Saiyads case (supra) it was not open to the Court to examine the sufficiency of adequacy of the grounds for the formation of opinion or entertainment of belief required for the issuance of a requisition under Schedule I to Rule 11 of the Rules. That indeed is true but it was necessary to show that there existed grounds for the satisfaction of the sine qua non under Rule 11 of the Rules before the issuance of the requisition under Schedule I for the relevant period. Mr. That indeed is true but it was necessary to show that there existed grounds for the satisfaction of the sine qua non under Rule 11 of the Rules before the issuance of the requisition under Schedule I for the relevant period. Mr. Panchal stated that in that event the prosecution may be given an opportunity to produce those forms to satisfy the Court that during the relevant period also F Forms were filled in and sub- mitted at the Octroi Naka and they had remained uncleared and hence the opinion was formed for the issuance of a requisition under Schedule I of the Rules. We are inclined to accede to this request. ( 14 ) IN the result therefore Criminal Appeals Nos. 325 and 327 of 1979 fail and are dismissed. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 1979 is concerned it is partly allowed in that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Sessions Judge with a direction to give the prosecution an opportunity to produce the F Forms for the relevant period and thereupon to decide whether the sine qua non under Rule 11 of the rules is satisfied. The learned Sessions Judge will dispose of this matter within a period of three months from to-day. Order accordingly. .