Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2037 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar v. Municipal Council, Beawar

2013-11-19

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2013
JUDGMENT 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 dated 12.8.1997 and the order dated 23.8.1997 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. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner imported goods from Jaipur which were purchased vide original invoice/bills dated 11.8.1997. Goods entered the municipal limits of Beawar, District Alwar on 12.8.1997. 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 dated 12.8.1997. 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. 3. 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. 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. 4. Petitioner filed representation before the Commissioner of Municipal Council, Beawar, who mechanically rejected the representation by order dated 14.8.1997. Thereafter appeal was filed before the District Magistrate, which was rejected on 12.1.2001 and then before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed it on 12.7.2002. Petitioner was therefore left with no option, but to approach this Court. 5. 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. 6. Rule 14(1) of the Rules of 1962 inter alia provides that before the octroi duty is paid, the original invoice bearing signature of the selling dealer or the dispatching agent, if any, shall be produced and may be considered valid and accepted as evidence of the value of the goods. Rule 14(1) provides that all goods, on which an ad valorem octroi is leviable will be taxed according to their full value as given in the original bill or invoice. The only premise on which the value of the goods could be accepted as the basis for computation of octroi, is the amount claimed in the original bill/invoice. Petitioner in the first instance produced that bill at the octroi post. The respondents accepted the correctness of that bill and required the petitioner to pay the octroi in the sum of Rs. 4,481, which he paid and then entered the municipal limits. It is thereafter that the Revenue Officer, Municipal Council has again checked the octroi paid goods. Petitioner in the first instance produced that bill at the octroi post. The respondents accepted the correctness of that bill and required the petitioner to pay the octroi in the sum of Rs. 4,481, which he paid and then entered the municipal limits. It is thereafter that the Revenue Officer, Municipal Council has again checked the octroi paid goods. In checking such goods, there is no assertion shown by the respondents that quantity of goods has in any manner been found to be more than what was declared in the bill. The Revenue Officer has rather reassessed the valuation of the aforesaid goods much more than what was indicated in the bill. In the bill, the valuation was declared to be Rs. 2,24,538, but the Revenue Officer, Municipal Council has accepted the value of the goods at Rs. 5,21,208 and on that basis held that amount of Rs. 5,933 was payable as octroi. Surprisingly, the penalty of ten times which has been levied is computed taking value to be Rs. 5,21,208 without giving any set off for the amount of Rs. 4,481 already paid as octroi. In any case, Rule 39 of the Rules provides that if any person who intentionally evades or attempts to evade the payment of octroi duty or any goods brought within the Municipality or infringes or attempts to infringe any of the provisions of the foregoing rules or in any way obstructs the Board or their servants in the performance of their duties connected with octroi duty under these rules shall, on conviction before a magistrate, be liable to a fine which may extend to Rs. 50 or ten times of octroi duty, whichever is greater. This rule was invokable only in the event of evasion of octroi and not otherwise. 7. In the circumstances, action of the respondents cannot be justified in law. While the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order levying penalty dated 23.8.1997 is declared to be illegal and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The excess amount to be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum within three months from the date copy of this judgement is produced before the respondents.Petition Allowed. *******