Y. V. Chandrachud, J. - (1.) These are cross appeals arising out of a judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No. 138 of 1952 modifying the decree passed by the First Additional District Judge. Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 6-B of 1949. It would be convenient to refer to the parties as plaintiffs and defendents, plaintiffs being the Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. and the defendants being the Corporation for the City of Jabalpur.
(2.) Plaintiffs are a limited company having their registered office at Calcutta. At the relevant time they had their factories at Batanagar in West Bengal. Batapur in West Punjab, Palsia-Digha in Bihar and Faridabad near Delhi. The sales organisation of the plaintiffs is situated at Calcutta, and that organisation sells manufactured articles throuh the Company's retail shops situated in different parts of India and Pakistan. Three such retail shops were situated at Jabalpur.
(3.) In respect of the articles which were imported by the retail shops at Jabalpur within the limits of the then Jabalpur Municipal Committee between April 1, 1943 and March 31, 1946 the plaintiffs had paid to the Municipal Committee a sum of Rs. 16528 odd as octroi duty. This duty was assessed by the Municipal Committee on an amount which was 40% less than the retail price of the goods which were brought within the municipal limits. In the year 1946-47 the Municipal Committee decided to reopen and revise the assessment by charging the octroi duty on an amount which was only 6 - 1/4% less than the retial price of the goods. The Municipal Committee further decided to levy double the duty by way of penalty for the aforesaid period on the ground that the plaintiffs had intentionally evaded the payment of the duty payable on the goods. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the decision of the Muncipal Committee to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jabalpur who by an order dated July 14, 1948 modified the decision of the Municipal Committee by permitting them to charge the octroi duty on an amount which was less by 12 - 1/2% than the retail price of the goods. The Sub-Divisional Officer however upheld the assessment of double duty. The revision application preferred by the plaintiffs to the Board of Revenue was rejected on October 4, 1948 on the ground that it was not maintainable.;