1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3362 of 1998 Sarda Fashions Ltd. Plot NO. 44, 50, Industrial Estate Nagar- Pune Road, Ahmednagar, through its Managing Director. Petitioner Versus 1] State of Maharashtra 2] Municipal Council, Ahmednagar through its Chief Officer. Respondents Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. N.B. Patil, AGP for the respondent No.1 Mr. V.S. Bede, Advocate for the respondent No.2. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 29TH July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI, J] : 1] The petitioner has filed the present petition, challenging the demand raised by letter dated 29th July, 1998, calling upon the petitioner to deposit Rs.78,608/-. 2] According to the petitioner, on 16th July, 1998, there was an altercation between one of the Directors of the petitioner and the Vice President of the Municipal Council. According to the petitioner 2 as a sequel of that quarrel, when the matador of the company carrying the goods was going to Mumbai, the same was detained and seized by the authorities of the Municipal Council. According to the petitioner, the said matador was detained in the central godown. The detention and seizure of the goods was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition 3134/1998. The said writ petition ws disposed of this court on 28th July, 1998 by recording a workable arrangement, according to which ,the officer of the respondent No.2 was to verify and determine the valuation of the goods and raise demand of octroi. In accordance with the said arrangement, demand was raised by the municipal council for an amount of Rs. 76,608/-. According to the petitioner, even as per the valuation of the respondent authorities, the value of the goods was Rs.3,57,312/- and as such, the octroi that could be leviable would come to Rs. 7146.24 s. and as such, the demand of Rs. 78608/- is not at all permissible in law. 3] According to the petitioner, the respondent Municipal council, with an ulterior motive had imposed 10 times penalty on the amount of octroi leviable, which is not permissible in law. 4] The respondent Municipal Council, in its affidavit in reply, has unequivocally admitted that what was demanded was only an octroi duty and not penal charges. In that view of the matter, we had requested the learned counsel for the Municipal Council to verify as to what was the rate of octroi on the goods concerned, at the relevant time. Shri Bedre, on instructions, submitted that at the octroi leviable was only 2 %. Admittely, even according to the 3 Corporation, the valuation of the goods is Rs.3,57,312/-. As such, the octroi duty @ 2% would come to Rs.7146.24 ps. We, therefore, find that the respondent Municipal Council/Corporatin had no authority in law to make a demand of Rs.78608/-. Admittedly, the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.78608/- with the Corporation. We, therefore, hold that the levy of octroi in excess of Rs.7146.24 ps was not authorized by law and therefore, direct the respondent Corporation to refund the remaining amount with interest @ 6% from the deposit till the payment. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms, with costs, which are quantified at Rs.5,000/-. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp