Mohindra Cranks Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Committee

Sat Pal, J.—In this case, the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-Municipal Committee from recovering any octroi from the petitioner. In the alternative, the plaintiff prayed for declaration to the effect that the respondent-Municipal Committee can recover octroi if any according to Head 93(1) under category 12 of the Punjab Government Gazette Extra Ordinary Notification dated 10.1.1994 at the rate of 0.1% ad valorem. Along with the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for issuance of ad interim injunction. The said application was partly allowed by the learned Sub Judge Second Class, Rajpura, vide his order, dated 27th October, 1995 and the learned trial court directed that the respondent-Municipal Committee shall be entitled to recover octroi at the rate of 0.1% ad valorem and not at the rate of Rs. 45/- per quintal as demanded by the respondent-Municipal Committee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent-Municipal Committee filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Patiala vide his order dated 10th September, 1997. By this Order, the learned District Judge, Patiala, dismissed the application of the petitioner/plaintiff filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC.

Mr. Vinay Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the plaintiff Company did not receive crank shafts forging for consumption use or sale and after machining and finishing, the raw material was returned back to its customers. He, therefore, contended that no octroi was recoverable from the plaintiff company. In the alternative, he submitted that the crank shafts forging was an agricultural machinery and under head 93(1) category 12 of the Notification mentioned above, the defendants could recover at the rate of 0.1% from the plaintiff-company. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in S.M. Ram Lal & Co. v. Secretary to Government of Punjab and Ors. 1969 C L J 458.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the impugned order dated 10th September, 1997, passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala. I, however, do not find any infirmity or illegality in the well reasoned order passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala. The question whether the crank shafts forging (raw material) after matching and finishing is converted into a different commercial commodity or not cannot be decided without the evidence of the parties. Even the petitioner company itself made an alternative prayer that the octroi should be levied at the rate of 0.1% and not at the rate of Rs. 45/- per quintal. In case it is held that the Municipal Committee has jurisdiction to levy octroi at lower rate or higher rate, then the order passed by the Municipal Committee is appealable as mentioned in the impugned order. All these questions can be decided after evidence of the parties. Even in the case of S.M. Ram Lal & Co. (supra) it was observed by the apex court that there is no evidence on the record to support the conclusion that in importing wool in the area of the Committee for dyeing in the factory of the appellants, it was intended to convert it in a different commercial commodity.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the above petition and the same is dismissed.