BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner -J.K. Synthetics Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the activities of manufacturing cement at Nimbahera, challenges letters of demand dated 30th October, 1989 (Annex. 5), 6th November, 1989 (Annex. 7), dated 29th November 1989 (Annex. 9), dated 16th December, 1989 (Annex. 3), dated 29Ih December, 1989 (Annex. 12) and dated 12th January, 1990 (Annex. 14), by the Municipal Board, Nimbahera Respondent No.2, in respect of demands raised regarding octroi on goods brought by the Company within the Municipal limits between 20th July, 1989 to 18th October, 1989. The other reliefs claimed in the writ petition relating to declaration of the order of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 84/87 on 13.9.89 in an appeal preferred by the present petitioner on earlier occasion to be still effective and operative in respect thereof notwithstanding promulgation of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Amendment) Ordinance, 1989, later on incorporated into the enactment and claim to refund of octroi duty levied and paid during the pendency of the earlier litigation, have not been pressed by the learned counsel. So also challenge the constitutional validity of provisions of the Ordinance has not been pressed. The facts, necessary for the present controversy, may be noticed at the outset. Until, before the issuance of Notification dated 13.2.84, extending the limits of Nimbahera Municipality, the factory premises of the petitioner -Company were situated outside the Nimbahera Municipality and it was not subjected to octroi in respect of goods which were brought to the factory area through the Municipal Limits of Nimbahera for use and consumption in the factory, By Notification dated 13.2.84, the Municipal limit of Nimbahera Municipality was extended to limits which include the factory premises of the petitioner -Company within the municipal limits of Nimbahera. This Notification was challenged by way of Writ Petition No. 946/84, inter alia, on the ground that the Notification (Annex. 4), for including the additional area in the Municipality vide the impugned Notification to be declared invalid for non -compliance of the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). Other consequential relief that since the Notification, extending the limits of the Municipality was invalid, no octroi was leviable in respect of goods brought within the factory for use and consumption therein was also raised. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 9.1.87, against which D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 84/87 was preferred by the petitioner -company.
(3.) THE Division Bench, concurred with the learned Single Judge and held that the Notification, extending the limits of the Municipality, was valid and suffers from no irregularity. However, it agreed with the submission, made on behalf of the petitioner -company that in the absence of word 'Notification' in sub -section (7) of Section 4 of the Act, the Municipal Board had no authority to levy octroi in respect of the goods brought within the extended area of Municipality, unless further notification levying octroi on goods brought within the extended area for use and consumption therein was issued. The Court held that so far as the inclusion of any Panehayat circle in any existing municipality is concerned, that could be made as per sub -section (4) of Section 8 and old Notification would apply to the newly included area of panchayat circle. In view thereof, the levy of octroi w.e.f 13.2.84 in respect of the goods brought for use and consumption within the Factory area, therefore, was held to be unsustainable notwithstanding it becoming a part of the Municipal Board, Nimbahera, for want of new Notification, extending levy of octroi duty to that area also and the Court further ordered refund of the octroi collected during the pendency of the writ petition w.e.f.the date of Notification dated 13.2.84. The Division Bench decided the appeal of the petitioner on 13.9.89.;