1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2036 OF 1993 M/s Karamchand Thaper & Bros. (C. S.) Limited, through its General Manager, Thaper House, Temple Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Civil Lines, nagpur. 2. Additional Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 3. The Octroi Superintendent, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 4. M/s Rahul Transport Pvt. Ltd. Through its Branch Manager, Gandhibagh, Nagpur. RESPONDENT. Shri.C. S. Samudra, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri. C. S. Kaptan, Counsel for the respondents. 2 CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & C. L. PANGARKAR JJ. Date: 16th JULY 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per ANOOP V. MOHTA J.) The present Writ Petition is against the confirmed order of respondents where by after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the Octroi Rules For the Assessment, Collection and Refund of the Cess (Octroi Duty) imposed under Section 114(1)(e) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act of 1948, confirmed the levy of 10 times penalty on the 150 paper bundles allegedly to be evaded by the appellants/petitioners. Initially both the appellants i.e. M/s Rahul Transport Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner M/s Karamchand Thaper challanged the impugned demand. The said challenge was rejected by order dated 29.07.1991 by observing as under: “After going through the record of the case very carefully and hearing the arguments of all concerned, I am convinced that goods have been brought into the city by avoiding to pay tax and hence appellant's defence have no force. Hence the appeal is dismissed and order of the respondent Octroi Superintendent is confirmed.” The petitioner thereafter preferred further revision and the 3 Commissioner Nagpur Municipal Corporation by order dated 17.05.1993 confirmed the said demand by observing as under: “From the facts on record and from perusal of the impugned appellate order, I am convinced that the owner as well as the transporter avoided the responsibility of payment of octroi duty and when for all purposes the truck concerned reached the naka its driver was first legally bound to pay the same to set the matter subsequently with the owner of the goods. I, therefore, find that the action of the Octroi Department in the matter of issuing demand notice as well the impugned appellate order was perfectly correct and legally justified.” The original appellant No.1 was non applicant No.1 in the appeal filed by the petitioner. Fact remains, therefore, that there was no further challenge made by the said M/s Rahul Transport. 2. In absence of any challenge by M/s Rahul Transport the said demand as well as the reasoning given by the Competent Authority based upon the facts and circumstances of the case has attained finality. The submission, therefore, on behalf of the petitioner that the demand so made by the respondents in given facts is illegal and ought not to have been raised. It was the duty of the transporter to make the 4 payment. Both the authorities have considered these facts also and confirmed the demand so made. There is no challenge to the right and power of the authority to demand such 10 times octroi. It is nothing but a penal duty and the same is within ambit of rules. Therefore, taking all this into account we see no case made out by the petitioner to interfere with the finding given by the authorities. The petition is therefore dismissed. Interim order so granted therefore stands dismissed. No cost. JUDGE JUDGE svk