ARJUN KHIMJI GINNING AND PRESSING CO. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order dated August 23, 1969, made by the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 1, whereby the State Government set aside the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Yeotmal, dated September 12, 1967 holding that the petitioners were entitled to refund of certain amounts paid by them as gin, bale and boja tax.

(2.) THE petitioners own a Ginning and Pressing Factory situated at Yeotmal within the municipal limits of the Yeotmal Municipal Council, respondents No. 2. On August 2, 1910, the Chief Commissioner, Central Provinces issued a Notification No. 823 under Section 44, Sub -sections (1) and (5) of the Berar Municipal Law, 1886. The said Notification was in the following terms: NOTIFICATION. Nagpur, the 2nd August, 1910. No. 828. With reference to Section 44, Sub -sections (7) and (8) of the Berar Municipal Law, 1886, it is hereby notified that the Municipal Committee of Yeotmal in the Yeotmal District, directed the imposition with effect from the 1st August, 1910, of Tax on the Ginning and the Pressing of cotton under Section 41(1)(a)(b) of the said Law to be levied from all persons carrying on within the limits of the Yeotmal Municipality the trade of Ginning cotton or Pressing the same into Bales by means of steam or mechanical process at the following rates - (1) For each Boja of Ten maunds ginned...8 pies. (2) For each Boja of fourteen maunds pressed. ... 10 pies. The tax is payable in one instalment on the 1st of September each year. R.P. Colomb. Second Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Central Provinces.

(3.) THE Sub -Divisional Officer, Yeotmal, by his order dated September 12, 1967 negatived the contentions raised on behalf of respondents No. 2 and allowed the petitioners' appeal and directed respondents No. 2 to pay the said sum of Rs. 15,721.41 to the petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date of his said order. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondents No. 2 filed a revision application under Section 83(1 -A) of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, to the State Government. This revision application was allowed and the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer set aside. In revision it was held that the petitioners' remedy did not lie under the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, but their proper remedy was to file a civil suit. It was further held that even assuming the petitioners could file an appeal against the refusal to refund the excess amounts paid by them, their remedy lay under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act and not under the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, and therefore, the appeal filed by them to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Yootmal, was incompetent and untenable. The State Government further held that under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, the State Government has the power of revision, and therefore, they could revise the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer under the said Section 318 of the Act. It is against this order of the State Government that the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.