P.S.Poti, C.J. - (1.) Section 178 (1) (ii) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961, empowers the Gram Panchayat and a Nagar Panchayat, subject to any general or special order (including an order fixing the minimum and maximum rates of a tax or fee) which the State Government, may make in this behalf to levy octroi tax on animals or goods or both brought within the gram or nagar for consumption, use or sale therein. R. 3 of the Gujarat Gram and Nagar Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules, 1964, deals with "procedure for levying tax and fee" and since the scope of the rule and its application are matters in controversy here, we extract the abovesaid rule: "3. Procedure for levying tax or fee. Before deciding to levy a tax or fee every panchayat shall observed the following procedure, namely:_ (a) It shall, by resolution passed at its meeting, select a tax or fee which if propose to levy and in such resolution shall specify the rate at which it is to be levied. (b) For the purpose of inviting objections in that behalf, it shall then notify to the public, by means of a notice affixed at the office of the Panchayat and at the Chavdi or Chord of the gram or nagar or at some conspicuous place in the gram or nagar, the proposal together with that part of these rules which relates to that tax or fee specifying a date not, earlier than one month after the date of such notification on or alter which the panchayat shall take the proposal into consideration. The fact of the notification of such proposal shall, as soon as may be, be announced either by beat of drum in the gram or nagar or by publishing it at some conspicuous places in gram or nagar or in at least one local Gujarati Newspaper circulating in the area of the panchayat. (c) Any inhabitant of the gram or nagar objecting to the levy of the tax or fee so proposed or desiring to rnake any suggestion may send his objection in writing to the panchayat on or before the date specified in notice published under.clause (b) or orally on the day or days on which the panchayat considers the proposal. (d) On or after the date fixed under cl, (b), the panchayat shall consider all objections and suggestions received by it under clause (c) and way unless, the proposal is dropped select a tax or a fee and decide the rate at which it is to be levied."
(2.) The Short question that arises Jot decision in the Second Appeal concerns the application of R. 3 (b) to the ease. The appellants Gram Panchayats resolved to levy octroi duty at a meeting held on 29th March 1967 and in accordance with R. 3 (b) issued a notice to the public. This notfication was on 31-3-1967, followed later by a notification in a local Gujarati newspaper on 9-41967. The notification as translated in English, the correctness of which translation is not disputed by both sides, reads: "Public Notice No .66-67 All persons of Fort, Songadh, Rani Aamba, Amlipada and Ukai Panchayat villages are here by informed that above panchayats have sought permission from State Government to levy octroi by them jointly. (Gujarat State, Panchayat and Health Department of Government by its resolution No. GU, Pa. A. 2567/1123-A dt. 7-3-1967 granted permission for three years from the resolution. In pursuance to the above permission, above said, Panchayats have jointly decided to levy octroi in their joint meeting held on 29-3-1967 by Resolution No. 3 upon goods imported within above panchayats whosoever have any objections they should submit them to Sarpanch, Fort Sonagadh Gram Panchayat by application within 1 month (30 days) from date of this public notice. Notification publishing the schedule showing rates of octroi levied on goods is published on the Board of the Panchayat. The applications received after the period will not be considered. (See below) This is Ex. 282 and is the notification as published in a Gujarati newspaper. The (late 31-4-1967 though originally shown, was corrected later by a publication on 17-4-1967, correcting the date to 31-3-1967.
(3.) The suit out of which the second appeal has arisen was filed by a person who is said to have paid octroi duty levied on him and his prayer was for refund of such duty paid and also for a declaration that such octroi duty was not properly levied. He purported to sue on behalf of himself and others like him who had paid octroi duty, under 0. 1, R. 8 of the Civil P. C. The suit was dismissed but this was reversed in appeal, consequent upon which he has been given a decree for recovery of the amount said to have been paid by him. He had, in the plaint, made a general attack to the levy 'of the duty by' notification challenging it on the ground that all the formalities required by law to be observed were not observed. Naturally, this was refuted by a general denial by the defendantspanchayats. But, at the hearing before the appellate Judge, the point specifically taken as to the invalidity was that R. 3 (b) of the Rules was contravened in the case inasmuch as the notification issued under that rule did not specify the date as required by the rule. This contention evidently appealed to the Court below and on that approach, the notification and the consequent levy have been found to be illegal.;