ASN v. The Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar i/by Rahul Kadam for Petitioners. Mr. R.P.Behere, Addl. G.P. for Respondent No.2. Mr. K.J. Presswala along with SandeepGoyal i/by Mulla & Mulla & CBC for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Mr. K.J. Presswala along with Anamika Malhotra for Respondent No.1. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND D.G. KARNIK, J. Tuesday, 22nd March, 2011 PC : The petitioners, four in number, residing within the limits of Dehu Road Cantonment Board, Pune have challenged the levy of Octroi of Dehu Road Cantonment Board. 2 The only ground of challenge pressed at the time of hearing of this petition is that the Dehu Road Cantonment Board is empowered to levy to those taxes which the Municipal Council may levy and that since the Octroi has been abolished by Maharashtra Act No.31/1999 by deleting Sections 136 to 139 which earlier empowered the Municipal Council to levy octroi, the Cantonment Board cannot levy octroi. Our ASN 2 PIL-221.sxw attention has been invited to the provisions of Section 66 and 108 and also to the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “The Municipal Councils Act”).

Sub Section (1) of Section 66 of the Cantonments Act provides that Cantonment Board shall, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, impose property tax and tax on trades, professions, callings and employments. Sub Section (2) provides that in addition to the taxes specified in sub section (1) the Board, may, for the purpose of this Act, impose any tax which under the enactment for the time being in force may be imposed in any Municipality in the State in which the Cantonment Board is situated. Proviso to sub Section (2) further reads as under: Provided further that the Board shall not abolish any tax imposed under this section or vary it to the Board’s financial disadvantage without the prior sanction of the Central Government. Sub Section (3) further provides that the taxes specified in sub sections (1) and (2) shall be imposed, assessed and collected in accordance with the provisions of this Act, rules and the bye laws made thereunder.

3 Section 108 provides that Cantonment Board shall be deemed to be a Municipal Committee for the purposes of taxation as per the Municipal Taxation Act, 1881. 4 Having considered the provisions of the Cantonment Act and the Municipal Councils Act, we find that while Maharashtra Act No. ASN 3 PIL-221.sxw 31/1989 deleted Sections 136 to 139 prohibiting the octroi by Amendment Act 2003, under Section 105 of the Amended Act No. 32/2003, the State Legislature empowered the Municipal Councils to levy the following taxes:- (aa) a cess on entry of goods into the limits of the municipal area for consumption, use or sale therein; 5 It is thus, clear that even now the Municipal Councils have been empowered to levy cess on entry of goods into the limits of the Municipal area for consumption, use or sale therein. Apart from that, under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the power to levy octoi is still available to the Municipal Corporation.

In Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Vs.G.Venketaram Reddy and others A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1210 the Apex Court held that the word Municipalities in Section 60 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 which is parametria with Section-66 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 includes even a Municipal Corporation and therefore, any taxes leviable by Municipal Corporation would also be leviable by Cantonment Board. There is no dispute that the Bombay Municipal Corporation is empowered to levy octroi. In view of the above discussion and on going through the Section 66(2) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 read with relevant provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and in the line of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, there can be no manner of doubt that Cantonments Board is empowered to levy octroi in respect of the goods which enter the limits of the Cantonments Board for consumption, use or sale therein. ASN 4 PIL-221.sxw 6 In the result, we see no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE D.G. KARNIK, J.