Kapur, J. - (1.)This is an appeal on a certificate by the High Court of Bombay against the judgment and order of that Court passed on a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the present appellants in regard to the legality of the notification levying an octroi duty on certain goods.
(2.)The appellants are some of the ratepayers of the Municipal Committee of Shegaon which is respondent No. 1 in this appeal. The other respondent is the State of Bombay. The appellants were carrying on trade and business which involved their bringing goods within the limits of the Municipal Committee. On July 25, 1954, the Municipal Committee passed a resolution for the purpose of levying an octroi duty instead of terminal tax. This resolution was published in the State Gazette on June 29, 1956, along with rules for assessment. On August 4, 1956, objections were invited to the proposed tax. The objections by the first appellant were filed on August 4, 1956, and by some others on August 5 and 6. At a meeting of the Municipal Committee dated August 16, 1956, the objections of the other appellants were rejected as being time barred and those by the first appellant were rejected because it was the only objector whose objections were within time. Some representations were made by the first appellant to the Government and a few days later the other objectors also made similar representations but the Government issued the notification sanctioning the imposition of the tax and the Draft Rules on October 27, 1956, though the Gazette Notifications were published on two separate dates, i.e., October 30 and October 31, 1956. The appellants then filed a petition under Art. 226 in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur challenging the legality of the imposition of the tax. Two main grounds were urged: (1) that the notification was ultra vires because S. 67 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (Act II of 1922), hereinafter termed the 'Act', had not been complied with and (2) that the rate of tax in regard to certain articles was unauthorised in that it was more than the maximum which could be levied under the law. The High Court rejected the first ground but accepted the second objection and gave relief accordingly.
(3.)Appellants Nos. 2 to 6 have not taken steps for the prosecution of the appeal and the appeal, in so far as it relates to them, is dismissed for non-prosecution.