- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 13.12.1993 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, respondent No.2.
(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 was engaged in the business of manufacturing drugs and for this purpose, imports various ingredients into the territory of Faridabad Municipal Corporation and is bound to pay octroi on the raw materials as per the rate schedule. On 22.12.1992, respondent No.1 imported beta naphthyl thiochloroformate worth Rs. 1,10,85,418/-. Previously, the octroi was being charged @ '8.40 per 100 k.g. plus 100% surcharge under item No.48 of the rate schedule and it was within the power of the Chief Administrator to charge at the said rate or ad valorem, i.e., '0.02 plus 100% surcharge. After 21.12.1992, the octroi was charged at ad valorem basis and respondent No.1 was asked to pay on that basis. Thereafter, due to the representations received by the Chemists that they faced lot of difficulty in the process and for the benefit of the general public, it was decided that the octroi shall not be charged on ad valorem basis w.e.f. 14.01.1993 and it was charged at '8.40 per 100 k.g. Due to the import, respondent No.1 paid tax of Rs. 4,42,416.72 towards octroi vide cheque dated 01.03.1993 and filed appeal before the Chief Administrator, Faridabad Complex Administration, Faridabad which was dismissed on 27.08.1993. The second appeal filed before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, was accepted vide order dated 13.12.1993 and the extra amount charged by the Corporation was directed to be refunded. The said order is under challenge.
(3.) In the written statement filed by respondent No.1, it was pleaded that the petitioner had alternative remedy to approach the State Government under Section 252 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and the petition was barred by latches since the order was passed on 13.12.1993 and the writ petition was filed in the month of October, 1994. The imposition at ad valorem was never placed before the competent authority and the procedure had been changed only for 22 days and, therefore, the order of the Commissioner was justified in allowing the appeal.;