1 ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.2288 OF 2009 Sandeep Jayant Shrigandhi ..Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr R.P. Sabban, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs M.P.Thbakur, A.G.P. For Respondent No.1. Mr Nitin Jamdar, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K.TATED,JJ DATED: 4TH NOVEMBER,2009 P.C.:- By this writ petition the petitioner 2 claims that he is entitled to refund of the excess octroi duty paid by him @ 10% pursuant to the Resolution No.452 dated 11.2.2005. Resolution No.452 dated 11.2.2005 was passed by the Solapur Municipal Corporation so far as the aspect which is relevant for this petition is concerned, it provides that as far as imported machinery is concerned the rate of octroi duty would be reduced from 10% to 4%. The second part of the Resolution says that till this proposal is approved by the Government the importer was to pay duty @ 10% under protest and on the reduction of rate being approved by the Government 6% duty recovered had to be refunded to the importer. Another Resolution was passed by the Corporation bearing No.28 dated 30.4.2005 wherein first part of the Resolution No.452 dated 11.2.2005 was reiterated, namely, that the rate of duty shall be reduced from 10% to 4% but the second part regarding payment of octroi @ 10% till approval by the State Government and 3 refund of 6% on approval was not included in the Resolution No.28 dated 30.4.2005. It appears that both these Resolutions were sent to the Government for approval. The order of the State Government approving the proposals is dated 2.9.2005. Perusal of that order shows that the Government has approved Resolution No.28 dated 30.4.2005. According to the Corporation, the proposal contained in the Resolution No.452 dated 11.2.2005 for refund of the octroi duty paid after 11.2.2005 is not approved by the State Government. However, according to the petitioner, as what is done by Resolution No.28 dated 30.4.2005 is reiteration of what is said in the Resolution No.452 dated 11.2.2005 and when Resolution No.28 dated 30.4.2005 is approved, the earlier Resolution No.452 dated 11.2.2005 also gets approved. In our opinion, submission is not well founded. If one keeps these Resolutions side by side and reads them, the difference is crystal clear. First 4 resolution is in two parts. The first part deals with reduction of rates and second part deals with refund of the duty. Second Resolution shows that only part dealing with reduction is reiterated and the part dealing with the refund is excluded. Perusal of the approval letter of the Government dated 2.9.2005 shows that the Government had before it both the Resolutions and the Government decided to approve one of them. In our opinion, therefore, there is no room for any doubt that the Resolution no.452 is not at all approved by the Government. What is approved is the proposal contained in the Resolution No.28 dated 30.4.2005 and therefore there is no question of refund of the duty paid by the importer. In any case, in our opinion, the reduced rate will come into force only on its approval by the Government and therefore till the Government approves it, importer will be liable to pay the duty as per the existing rule. Therefore, in our opinion, there will be 5 no justification for refund of the duty which was paid in accordance with the existing rule. We see no substance in the petition. The petition is hereby rejected. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (K.K.TATED,J)