JUDGMENT VINEET SARAN, CJ. - The short question in this petition is with regard to payment of Octroi tax levied by opposite party-Rayagada Municipality on goods supplied by the petitioner to the Indian Railways. 2. The brief facts are that in the year, 1995, the petitioner-Company had entered into an agreement with the Indian Railways for supply of High Tensil Steel (HTS) wire which was to be supplied to M/s.Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., Rayagada which manufactures sleepers on behalf of the Indian Railways. Pursuant to such contract, the petitioner-Company, which is located outside the Rayagada Municipality, made supplies to M/s.Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., within the local jurisdiction of Rayagada Municipality. Under Section 131 (1) (kk) of Orissa Municipal Act, 1950, the Municipalities have the power to impose Octroi tax on goods brought within the limit of Municipal area for consumption, use or sale therein. 3. Admittedly, the goods supplied by the petitioner are used and consumed within the Municipal area of Rayagada Municipality. In such circumstances, Rayagada Municipality has charged octroi taxes from the petitioner-Company. 4. Aggrieved by the charging of such octroi tax, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Company with the prayer for a direction to the Rayagada Municipalaity not to collect octroi tax from the petitioner-Company on the ground that the goods being supplied belong to Indian Railways. 5. Mrs. M. Padhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the goods which are supplied to M/s.Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., are done so on behalf of the Indian Railways and as such, the petitioner-Company would not be liable to payment of any octroi tax as the taxation on Railways by local authority would be exempted under Section 184 of the Railways Act, 1989 unless the Central Government by notification declares the Railway Administration to be liable to pay taxes. It is thus, contended that the petitioner having supplied the goods on behalf of the Railways, would not be liable to pay Octroi tax. 6. Per contra, Mr. It is thus, contended that the petitioner having supplied the goods on behalf of the Railways, would not be liable to pay Octroi tax. 6. Per contra, Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting opposite parties No.1 and 2-Rayagada Municipality has submitted that the goods supplied do not belong to the Railways and it is not the Railways which has claimed the benefit of Section 184 of Railways Act and thus, such benefit would not be available to the petitioner, who is the supplier of goods, not even to the Railways but to the manufacturer who manufactures sleepers for the Railways, after consuming the goods which are supplied by the petitioner. He thus, states that levy of Octroi tax on the goods, so taken in by the petitioner inside the Rayagada Municipal area, is fully justified in law. 7. Section 184 of the Railways Act, 1989 reads as under : “184. Taxation on Railways by local authorities – (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law, a railway administration shall not be liable to pay any tax in aid of the funds of any local authority unless the Central Government, by notification, declares the railway administration to be liable to pay the tax specified in such notification. (2) While a notification of the Central Government under sub-Section (1) is in force, the railway administration shall be liable to pay to the local authority either the tax specified in the notification or, in lieu thereof, such sum, if any, as an officer appointed in this behalf by the Central Government may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, from time to time determine to be fair and reasonable. (3) The Central Government may at any time revoke or vary a notification issued under sub-Section (1). (4) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent any railway administration from entering into a contract with any local authority for the supply of water or light, or for the scavenging of railway premises, or for any other service which the local authority may be rendering or be prepared to render to the railway administration.” 8. Relevant portion of Section of 131 (1) (kk) of Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 is also extracted hereunder : “131. Relevant portion of Section of 131 (1) (kk) of Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 is also extracted hereunder : “131. Power to impose taxes – (1) the Municipality may from time to time, at a meeting convened expressly for the purpose of which due notice shall have given subject to the provisions of this Act impose within the limits of the Municipal area the following taxes and fees or any of them : (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) xxx (e) xxx (f) xxx (g) xxx (h) xxx (i) xxx (j) xxx (k) xxx (kk) an octroi on goods brought within the limits of a Municipal area for consumption, use of sale therein.” 9. In Puri Fish Merchants Assocaition and another v. Puri Municipal Council and others, 1988 (I) OLR 126 (FB), the provision of Section 131 (1)(kk) of Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 with regard to validity of levy of octroi duty by the Puri Municipality on the purchase of and dispatch of marine fish and prawn was the question for consideration and was referred to the Larger Bench. In the said case, this Court, while finding that the decision in ITGC v. Puri Municipal Counsel, 46 (1978) CLT 387 was the correct view came to hold that octroi duty shall be imposed at the entry point. Prawns and fish caught from the sea at Puri and octroi levied at the point of exit held to be illegal. While holding so, this Court had considered the source of power for at the entry point. Prawns and fish caught from the sea at Puri and octroi levied at the point of exit held to be illegal. While holding so, this Court had considered the source of power for imposition of octroi flows from Entry 52 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, on the basis of which the State legislature provided for imposition of octroi under the Orissa Municipal Act. Considering the various judgments rendered by this Court as well as the Apex Court, it was also held that imposition of octroi duty was in the nature of a compensatory tax and that it was not necessary to establish the actual user of collections made for the amenities and does not impose restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed by Article 301 and 304 (b) or its proviso of the Constitution. 10. 10. A perusal of communication dated 8.2.1995 issued by Ministry of Railways and addressed to the petitioner relating to the contract for manufacture and supply of High Tensil Steel wire would go to show that the Railways has the authority to formally inspect the goods supplied and if not found proper, the railways would have the authority to reject such supplies made by the petitioner. In such view of the matter, it is clear that goods which were supplied by the petitioner and taken inside the municipal area of Rayagada Municipality, continue to be the property of the petitioner till they are supplied and accepted by the Railways. Meaning thereby, the sale of such goods is not complete till the supply is made and accepted. Accordingly, the goods which have been taken by the petitioner within the municipal area of Rayagada Municipality for use or sale or consumption would thus necessarily be liable to Octroi tax under sub-clause (kk) of sub-Section (1) of Section 131 of Orissa Municipal Act a the entry point. 11. Under the provisions of Section41 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, which provides for Buyer’s right of examining the goods, which would necessarily mean that the goods would be the property of the Buyer only after the same have been examined and accepted by the buyer, and till then the goods would continue to belong to the seller, which, in the present case, would be the petitioner. The petitioner would thus continue to have lien on the goods will the same are supplied and accepted by the buyer, which may be M/s. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. or the Indian Railways. Therefore, when goods enter into Municipal limits of Rayagada, the same is liable for imposition of octroi tax at the entry point in view of provisions contained in Section 131 (1) (kk) of Orissa Municipal Act. 12. We further notice that provisions of Section 184 of the Railways Act, 1989 would be attracted only when the railways take the goods within the municipal area of Rayagada Municipallity, which is not so in the present case. The Railways have not come forward claiming the benefit of octroi tax or claiming exemption under Section 184 of the Railways Act. It is the supplier, i.e. the petitioner, which has come forward claiming the benefit of Section 184, which is not permissible in law. 13. The Railways have not come forward claiming the benefit of octroi tax or claiming exemption under Section 184 of the Railways Act. It is the supplier, i.e. the petitioner, which has come forward claiming the benefit of Section 184, which is not permissible in law. 13. Much reliance has been placed by Mrs. Padhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer Vs. State of Orissa & others (Civil Appeal No.4934 of 2008 decided on 7.8.2008). We have gone through the said judgment which relates to a matter under the Orissa Entry Tax Act, 1999 and not under the Orissa Municipal Act and as such, it is not a case of payment of Octroi tax. We are of the opinion that the ratio of the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 14. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the relief claimed by the petitioner does not deserve to be granted. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.