Spb/ v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In the light of the above the petition is disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (R.M.SAVANT. J.)
Judgment
Mr.A.R.Pande for the Petitioner. --- Mr. Trupti Puranik for the Respondent. --- CORAM : R. M. SAVANT AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ (Vacation Bench) DATE : 14TH MAY, 2010 P.C.
The above petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a direction against the Respondent Municipal Corporation, directing it to permit the Petitioner to take his goods being 109 Gunny bags of Goa Gutka packets stored at Gala No.A/2, Ground floor, Lockwood 2 Industrial Transport Services, Ware Housing, Ray Road East, Mumbai, after accepting 1% octroi duty on the said consignment of the petitioner in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the octroi for the goods in question so that they can be released.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Municipal Corporation states that since prima facie it is a case of evasion of octroi, the petitioner is liable to pay the octroi and penalty as per the Rules.
We need not examine the issue as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay penalty or that whether the octroi has been rightly calculated by the Municipal Corporation, as the petitioner would have statutory remedy under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. We only record the 3 statement of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner would pay the octrio charges as leviable and payable including penalty, if any, which would be communicated to the petitioner/ his Advocate by the officers of the respondent-Corporation within two days i.e. by 15th of May, 2010 by 5 p.m.. The petitioner would be entitled to the release of his goods only if he pays the octroi and the penalty, if any, that would be communicated by the respondent -Corporation to the Petitioner/ his Advocate. The Petitioner would thereafter be entitled to agitate the grievance, if any, as regards the amount of octroi or penalty before the forum provided under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, in accordance with law.
In the light of the above the petition is disposed of. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (R.M.SAVANT. J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 May 2010. The bench was MRIDULA BHATKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.