FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION Vs. HINDUSTAN MILKFOOD MANUFACTURERS LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-1990-9-30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on September 04,1990

FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION Appellant
VERSUS
HINDUSTAN MILKFOOD MANUFACTURERS LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)- Civil Appeal No. 333/81 was filed against the order of the Division Bench passed on 10th April, 1980 dismissing LPA No. 125/1980 affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 1873/77. The subject matter of dispute is whether bringing horlicks powder in bulk container from outside State i.e. from Nabha in Punjab to Faridabad in Haryana for the purpose of repacking the same in small containers and then exporting the same outside the State for the purpose of sale etc. amounts to, consumption, use or sale within the octroi limits of Faridabad. It has been held by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4160 / 89 "we see no ground, as to why amount should not be refunded. Realisation of tax or money without the authority of law is bad under Art. 265 of the Constitution. Octroi cannot be levied or collected in respect of good which are. not used or consumed or sold within the municipal limits. So these amounts become collection without the authority of law. The respondent is a statutory authority in the present case. It has not right to retain the amount, so far and so much. These are refundable within the period of limitation. There is no question of limitation. There is no dispute as to the amount. There is no scope of any possible dispute on the plea of undue enrichment of the petitioners." "We, therefore, hold that amounts should be refunded subject to the verification directed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of the amount of refund. The appeal is, thus, allowed. The judgment and the order of the Division Bench of the High Court are therefore, set aside."
(2.)The question involved in the above appeal is similar to the one raised before us in this appeal, and in fact as against the same party. The facts are also similar. The question having been already concluded by this Court does not require any further consideration.
(3.)It is also evident from the order passed on 22-4-76 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1484 of 1976 that the counsel for the State gave an undertaking to refund to the respondent any octroi that may be found not due but may have been paid in the meantime under the existing arrangement.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.