TMI Blog1976 (4) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Municipality had collected certain amounts wrongfully, and the grievance in the other petition was that the Municipality had refused some amounts even though they were refundable under its byelaws. Both the petitions concerned goods which were imported within the octroi limits of the Municipality but came to be exported therefrom. The first petition was in respect of a consignment which was designated as a through consignment, and the second petition concerned goods in transit and goods for export other than those which could be called goods in transit. The amounts in dispute related to the levy of octroi under section 73(i) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1923, hereinafter called the Act, which provides as follows: 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in that sense, the Legislature would be guilty of having introduced a word which it was not necessary for it to introduce. The High Court made a reference to the definition of sale in section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act and held that the expression sale as used in the definition of 'through consignments in the rules had the same connotation as in the Sale of Goods Act and therefore if a consignment is brought within the octroi limits and if the municipal authorities are satisfied that the consignment has been brought in for the purpose of effecting a sale in the aforesaid sense, then the consignment does not become a through consignment. According to the High Court, it was not enough merely to prove that the consignment left the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deserved consideration by a larger Bench. This is how the case has come up before us for hearing. We have allowed Municipal Council, Jodhpur, to intervene in the hearing at its request. The short question before us is whether this Court's decision in the Burmah Shell's case (supra) squarely covers the present controversy or whether that decision requires reconsideration. The learned counsel have in fact confined their arguments to this narrow field. In order to appreciate the controversy, it will be desirable to refer to the basic facts of the Burmah Shell's case (supra). The Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. India Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Company, was a dealer in petrol and other petroleum product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and that they were leviable in respect of goods put to some use or other in the area but only if they were meant for such user. It was specifically clarified that the word sale was included only in 1954 in order to bring the description of octroi in the Act in line with the Constitution, and that the expression consumption and use together connote the bringing in of goods and animals not with a view to taking them out again but with a view to their retention either for use without using them up or for consumption in a manner which destroys, wastes or uses them up. Looking to the trade of the Company, this Court held that sale by it directly to consumers or to dealers was merely the means for putting the goods in the way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purpose of use or consumption by them in the area. It was only when the goods were re-exported out of the area that the tax could not legitimately be levied...... This Court categorically held that the Company was liable to pay octroi on goods brought into the local area (a) to be consumed by itself or sold by it to consumers direct, and (b) for sale to dealers who in their turn sold the goods to consumers within the municipal area irrespective of whether such consumers bought them for use in the area or outside it, but it was not liable to octroi in respect of goods which it brought into the local area and which were re- exported. The law on the subject matter of the present controversy has thus been laid down quite clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
