JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing of cable wire which is solely used for the purpose of transmission of line in Telephone department. On receipt of orders from the Department of Telecommunication for the purpose of laying down the cables and for the purpose of transmission the petitioner had to supply goods/cables to Telephone Department, Union of India which were to be delivered to Asstt. Engineer (Material Management) Optical Fibre Cable Station Chaksu, District Jaipur. The Municipal Board Chaksu realizes octroi on the goods brought within its jurisdiction. The collection of octroi is made by contractor Prem Singh & Company under Section 11 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act and rules framed thereunder. The State Government had granted exemption from taxation on the goods and material if the same is used or intended to be used solely for public purpose and not for the purpose of profit. The State Government has been vested with such powers of exemption under the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 107 by issuing notification in official gazette. The State Government had granted exemption from levying octroi on the goods which was being brought within the limits of municipality vide order dated 16.7.94 and 19.5.95, as per annexure-1 from the period for 7.7.95 to 6.7.97. The petitioner had received an order for supply of goods to the Telephone Department which were to be brought in territorial area of the Municipal Board as per annexure-3. 2. It is the grievance of petitioner that despite notification having been issued under the provisions of law and certificate given by the department of telecommunication, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 16.8.95 holding the petitioner liable for the octroi dues. It was the case of petitioner that no such octroi was included in the value under the invoice and therefore the petitioner was not liable to pay any octroi. The impugned order dated 16.8.95 is attached as annexure-4. The carriage vehicle of petitioner was seized and held up for a few days and it is stated that under the coercion, an amount of Rs. 35,000/- was also forcibly realised from the petitioner. The receipt of such realisation is attached as annexure-5. Apart from above, the petitioner has been held to be liable for an amount Rs. 17,32,038/- vide order dated 10.11.95 (Annexure-6) by including the penalty. 35,000/- was also forcibly realised from the petitioner. The receipt of such realisation is attached as annexure-5. Apart from above, the petitioner has been held to be liable for an amount Rs. 17,32,038/- vide order dated 10.11.95 (Annexure-6) by including the penalty. The petitioner represented to higher authorities but without there being any action on the part of respondents. The petitioner is being also proceeded criminally for such evasion of octroi tax in the court of ACJM No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur on the complaint filed by respondent. The petitioner is also challenging the initiation of criminal proceeding and submits that under Section 11 of the Act, no prosecution could have been launched against the petitioner in respect of any offence committed after a period of six months and as such the complaint is barred by limitation. He further submits that goods in question were being conveyed for which there was an exemption order from paying octroi tax. As such, for the reason that the very basis of levying of octroi tax is not available to respondents, any consequential action taken against the petitioner is to be declared illegal. The impugned orders dated 16.10.95 (Ann.4) and 10.11.95 (Ann.6) are prayed to be quashed with the direction to refund of amount illegally collected from the petitioner. 3. The written statement has been filed by both the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner was liable to pay octroi duty under Section 11 of the Act. It is the case of respondents that on the document 'builty' the petitioner has included all taxes, and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay tax to municipality. It is stated that the petitioner has made evasion of octroi duty and the amount of Rs. 1,92,458.00 was liable to be recovered subject to adjustment to tax already paid and the prosecution is to be launched under Rule 39 of the Rules made thereunder. The written statements filed by both the respondents are identical. 4. In rejoinder filed by petitioner, it is stated that the goods were delivered on 12.10.95 and thus the complaint was beyond the period of limitation, having been filed after the period of six months. It is further contended that as per notification annexure-2, on the certification having been given by the SDO (Telegraphs)/Asstt. Engineer (Telephones)/Divisional Engineer Telephones etc. 4. In rejoinder filed by petitioner, it is stated that the goods were delivered on 12.10.95 and thus the complaint was beyond the period of limitation, having been filed after the period of six months. It is further contended that as per notification annexure-2, on the certification having been given by the SDO (Telegraphs)/Asstt. Engineer (Telephones)/Divisional Engineer Telephones etc. in respect of delivery of goods or the import of goods in the Municipality for the purpose of its being used by the Department, the said goods will be exempted from octroi tax. 5. The photo copy of the invoice has been attached as annexure-1, wherein the certificate has been given that the goods are to be delivered to consignee and the consignee was Asstt. Engineer. The annexure-2 is the exemption letter to the effect that on the certificate having been issued by concerned officer to the effect that the material is to be used for the public purpose, the octroi tax is not leviable. The said certificate issued by SDO Asstt. Engineer has been attached as annexure-3, wherein it has been clearly mentioned by SDO that the material is being sent to be used for the public purpose and is under exemption clause for the purpose of payment of octroi. Annexure-8 is the complaint filed on 15.4.96 by Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Chaksu in the court of Judicial Magistrate. From the copies of invoice attached with the writ petition, the value of goods is mentioned and against the value of goods there is addition of Excise Duty, Sales Tax, RST, Freight and Insurance, but nowhere it has been mentioned that the value of goods includes also the octroi tax. 6. Learned counsel for respondent wants to state that inclusive taxes i.e. Excise Duty, ST, F&T and all other levies should be taken to have included octroi tax as well. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that in the invoice itself, the amount of Excise Duty, RST, Sales Tax, Freight and Insurance have been determined and added in the value of goods. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that in the invoice itself, the amount of Excise Duty, RST, Sales Tax, Freight and Insurance have been determined and added in the value of goods. Apart from above, the petitioner company has not only filed an affidavit but has also attached the certificates issued by Sub Divisional Engineer, Telephone Department to the effect that the goods in question was not leviable for octroi tax as the exemption had been granted for import of such goods to the Municipal Area under Section 11 of the Act. The respondent Municipality or any of its Agent or contractor had not acted fairly. It seems that the petitioner had been proceeded against without application of mind. All details of different taxes charged by petitioner while valuing invoices has been mentioned in invoices itself. Once the exemption had been granted and the exemption was enforced and the material to be imported in Chaksu Municipality was for public purpose and accompanied by certificate of concerned officer, as required, attached to writ petition, it was sufficient compliance of exemption clause and as such the goods were not liable for octroi tax. Thus the respondents have definitely acted beyond jurisdiction and without any authority of law and deliberately knowing well, that the goods were exempted from octroi tax. But it seems that the contractor, who has been given contract to collect the revenue for Municipality, to gain for himself has exceeded its jurisdiction and so did the officers of Municipality. If the material was not taxable being under exemption clause, there was no question to seize any of the truck of petitioner or to force the petitioner to part with any amount. 7. The petitioner shall be entitled to refund of the amount Rs. 35,000/- within three months. If the amount is not refunded within three months, in that situation the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit till payment. The impugned orders dated 16.10.95 (Ann.4) and 10.11.95 (Ann.6) cannot be sustained in law, and therefore, are quashed.For the reasons mentioned above the writ petition is allowed with cost, the cost is assessed as Rs. 1,000/-.Petition Allowed with costs. *******