Full Judgment Text
1 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9718 OF 2012
Wockhardt Limited,
L1, MIDC, Chikalthana
(A Company registered under the
provisions of Companies Act, 1956).
Through Vice President
Shivdas Kondiram Dhas
Age : 49 years, Occu. Service
R/o. Aurangabad . PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
1. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad
(Notice be served on the Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad).
2. The Local Body Tax Officer,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad.
3. The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Council,
Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5493 OF 2013 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9718 OF 2012
Wockhardt Limited ..APPLICANT
Versus
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation
and others ..RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
2 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 289 OF 2014
LUPIN LTD, Chikalthana,
(A Company registered under the
provisions of Companies Act, 1956).
A28/1 MIDC Industrial Area,
Chikalthana
Through Senior General Manager,
Mr. Gautam Pareek,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Service
R/o. Aurangabad . PETITIONER
.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai32
2. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad
(Notice be served on the Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad).
3. The Dy. Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad.
4. The Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 10110 OF 2012
Garware Polyester Limited,
L6, Chikalthana Industrial Area,
Dr.Abasaheb Garware Marg
District Aurangabad
Through its President,
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
3 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
Mr. Chandrashekhar
Jaiwantrao Pathak, Age 58 years,
Occu.: Service, R/o. Plot No.F127,
N4, CIDCO,
Aurangabad431003. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad
(Notice be served on the Commissioner,
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad).
2. The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue),
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6092 OF 2013 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10110 OF 2012
Garware Polyster Limited ..APPLICANT
Versus
Aurangabad Municipal Corporation
and another ..RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. S.P. Shah,
Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No. 9718/2012
Mr. G.K. NaikThigle, Advocate for the petitioner in
W.P. No. 10110/2012
Mr. L.D. Vakil, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P.
No. 289/2014
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A.M. Karad,
Advocate for the respondent/Municipal Corporation in all
Writ Petitions
Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for the respondentState in all
Writ Petitions
......
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
4 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON : 09/09/2014
PRONOUNCED ON : 14/10/2014
J U D G M E N T :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With
consent of the parties, all the petitions are heard
finally.
2. All the present Writ Petitions raise a
common question regarding the scope and
applicability of exemption from payment of Local
Body Tax (for short “ L.B.T. ”) as provided by Sub
Rule 6 of Rule 28 of the Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporations (Local Body Tax) Rules, 2010
(for short “ the Rules ”) and interalia, the
objection of the respondent Aurangabad Municipal
Corporation on the maintainability of the present
Writ Petitions on its claim that equally
efficacious alternate remedy is available to the
petitioners, as provided by section 406 of the
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949
(for short “ the Act ”).
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
5 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
3. Wockhardt Ltd. (petitioner in Writ
Petition no. 9718 of 2012) manufactures and exports
certain medicines. It is a 100% export oriented
unit situated at M.I.D.C. Chikalthana, Aurangabad.
It imports raw material within the territorial
limits of the respondent Municipal Corporation and
after process, manufactures various tablets like
Azithromycin – 250 mg etc. It is sent abroad
through the Custom Invoice of M/s. Wockhardt Ltd.,
Ankaleshwar (Gujarat State). Its registered Office
is at Bandra (East), Mumbai.
4. Garware Polyester Ltd. (petitioner in Writ
Petition no. 10110 of 2010) is having its unit in
M.I.D.C. Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. It is
engaged in manufacture of various types of
polyester films for domestic consumption as well as
for export. For the said purpose, it also imports
certain raw material and after process, the final
product is sent out either for domestic consumption
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
6 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
or for export out of India.
5. Lupin Ltd. (petitioner in Writ Petition
no. 289 of 2014) is also engaged in manufacture of
medicine formulation from its plant situated in
M.I.D.C. Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. It also
imports certain raw material and, thereafter, the
finished pharmaceutical products are exported
abroad.
6. Petitioner – Wockhardt Ltd. earlier made a
representation to the respondent for exemption from
levy of the L.B.T. as per the provisions of Sub
Rule 4 of Rule 28 of the Rules. The respondent
observed that the said Rules will not be
applicable. Thereafter, a representation was made
seeking exemption as per the provisions of Sub Rule
6 of Rule 28 of the Rules. The same was turned
down. Aggrieved by the same, earlier Writ Petition
no.148 of 2012 was filed. The order of the
respondent was set aside by this Court and the
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
7 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
respondent was directed to pass fresh order in the
light of the provisions of Sub Rule 6 of Rule 28 of
the Rules. Again after hearing, the representation
of the petitioner was overruled by the respondent.
In the circumstances, next of the Writ Petition
bearing Writ Petition no. 4239 of 2012 was filed.
Once again, this Court has directed to decide the
issue, as directed in the earlier Writ Petition.
In the circumstances, on third occasion, the
impugned order came to be passed on 17/11/2012.
It is the case of the petitioner that the
respondent and more particularly, the Commissioner
has again and again resorted to the provisions of
Sub Rule 4 of Rule 28 of the Rules, instead of
taking recourse to the provisions of Sub Rule 6 of
Rule 28 of the Rules and, therefore, the present
Writ Petition is filed.
7. In the case of Garware Polyester Ltd.
(Writ Petition no. 10110 of 2012), the petitioner's
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
8 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
similar representation was rejected by the Deputy
Commissioner of the respondent on 03/11/2012 on the
similar grounds.
8. In Writ Petition no. 289 of 2014, the
petitioner Lupin Ltd. has challenged two separate
demand notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner.
The objection raised to these two demand notices
was rejected by respondent no.3 Deputy
Commissioner. In the circumstances, the appeal is
preferred before the Commissioner, which is
pending.
9. In view of the amendment of the year 2009
to the Act, in place of octroi, for certain
Municipal Corporations, the provision empowering
levying and collection of the L.B.T. is provided
for. Accordingly, the Aurangabad Municipal
Corporation has been notified to be the Corporation
which is empowered to levy the L.B.T. in the manner
as provided by the Rules. The Rules of 2010 are
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
9 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
framed by the Government of Maharashtra, as
provided by section 152(T)(2) of the Act, which
interalia provides for exemption from payment of
the L.B.T. Rule 28 of the Rules is material to
decide the present controversy. It reads as
under:
“28. . – (1) No
Exemption in certain cases
local body tax shall be levied on the
goods imported into the City by State or
Central Government, on production of a
certificate from an officer empowered by
the Government concerned in this behalf,
certifying that the goods so imported
belong to the State Government and are
imported for public purpose and are not
used or intended to be used for the
purpose of earning profit.
(2) No local body tax shall be levied on
the goods imported into the limits of the
City on behalf of, or on account of State
or Central Government, on production of a
certificate from an officer empowered by
the Government concerned in this behalf,
within a period of six months from the
date of importation, certifying that the
goods so imported belong to the Government
and are imported for public purpose and
are not used or intended to be used for
the purposes of earning profit.
(3) If any goods held by a dealer or a
person in the City are moved outside the
City for carrying out the process
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
10 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
enumerated in the Explanation to this
rule, and are reimported without
effecting any change in condition or
appearance, as also the ownership of the
goods, the value of the goods moved out,
shall be allowed to be deducted from the
total value of processed goods reimported
and local body tax shall be leviable only
on the value added i.e. processing
charges, transfer charges, etc:
Provided that, the goods are
reimported within a period of six months
from the date of export outside the City
and the dealer furnishes the information
of such export in the returns for the
relevant periods.
(4) If any dealer in the City imports
any goods from any place outside the city
for carrying out any of the processes
enumerated in the explanation under this
rule, on job work basis and proves to the
satisfaction of the Commissioner that the
goods processed have been exported within
a period of six months from their
importation, to the same person outside
the City and there had been no change in
the ownership and in the form of the goods
at the time of export, no local body tax
shall be levied subject to the following
conditions, namely:
(i) that dealer shows the value of such
goods in the return of the relevant
period;
(ii) the dealer pays security deposit, as
a guarantee, as may be determined by the
Commissioner in this behalf. However, a
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
11 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
dealer importing the goods for processing
on regular basis, may make a deposit as
standing deposit as may be fixed by the
Commissioner from time to time.
Explanation – For the purpose of subrules
(3) and (4) processing shall include
(i) grinding, dyeing, bleaching, painting,
finishing, stentering, embroidering,
doubling, twisting, metallising and
electroplating;
(ii) building and mounting of bodies over
chassis of vehicles of all kinds and shall
also include such other processes as may
be approved by the Commissioner, from time
to time.
The decision of the Commissioner in this
respect, shall be final.
(5) When any goods held in the City are
sold and exported outside the City are
received back due to rejection of goods by
the purchaser, no local body tax shall be
levied on such goods, provided that the
goods are received back in the City within
a period of six months from the date of
their export and the dealer proves to the
satisfaction of the Commissioner that the
sale of such goods was disclosed in the
return of the relevant period.
(6) The register dealer who is exporting
the goods outside the territory of India,
shall be exempt from the levy of the Local
Body Tax in respect of the value of the
goods used for the purpose of such
export.“
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
12 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
10. While earlier, Wockhardt Ltd. petitioner
in Writ Petition no. 9718 of 2012 has claimed
exemption as per the provisions of Sub Rule 4 of
Rule 28 of the Rules and had foregone the same
after its rejection, it has now sought the
exemption, as detailed supra, under the provisions
of Sub Rule 6 of Rule 28 of the Rules.
11. The representation of the said petitioner
was rejected by the respondent no.3 the
Commissioner by the impugned speaking order on the
following counts:
(i) The documents produced by the petitioner
would show that the Development Commissioner of
Kandla has granted the exemption from payment of
custom duty to Ankaleshwar unit of the petitioner
Wockhardt Ltd., being in special economic zone
while the M.I.D.C. area of the Chikalthana,
Aurangabad is not declared as the Special Economic
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
13 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
Zone.
(ii) The raw material imported by the
petitioner is processed and the finished products
are prepared while some part of the product is sold
for domestic consumption within India.
Further, certain observations regarding
the custom invoices in the name of Wockhardt Ltd.,
Ankaleshwar (Gujarat State) and M/s. Wockhardt
Ltd., Bandra (East) Mumbai were made and it was
declared that the present petitioner is not
eligible for seeking exemption under Sub Rule 6 of
the Rule 28 of the Rules.
12. During arguments, it is gathered that the
registered office of the petitioner is at Bandra
(East), Mumbai while it has one unit within the
Special Economic Zone at Ankaleshwar (Gujarat
State) and while filling the ARE1 form, the custom
invoice is made in the name of the Ankaleshwar unit
by the petitioner.
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
14 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
13. During the pendency of the present Writ
Petitions, on the direction issued by this Court
vide its order dated 29/4/2014, the learned A.G.P.
as well as the respondent / Municipal Corporation
have filed their additional affidavits regarding
the fact, as to whether the various Municipal
Corporations within the State of Maharashtra grants
exemption from L.B.T. even after processing raw
material and then exporting the same outside the
territory of India. The said affidavits would show
that the Municipal Corporation where some
registered dealers are situated and export the
goods outside of India, the exemption is granted to
them. The State Government has filed the affidavit
stating that the rule itself is selfexplanatory.
14. During hearing, while Mr. P.M. Shah,
learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned
counsel for the petitioners in respective writ
petitions submitted that in view of the provisions
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
15 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
of Sub Rule (6) of Rule 28 of the Rules, the
respondent Municipal Corporation will have to grant
exemption and the present writ petitions are
maintainable, Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned senior
counsel instructed by Mr. A.M. Karad for the
respondentMunicipal Corporation submitted that the
petitioners have an equally efficacious remedy to
file an appeal under section 406(1) of the Act.
Mr. Dhorde further submitted that as the raw
material is processed and then the finished product
is exported, no exemption can be granted.
Mr. Dhorde, in the alternative submitted that the
L.B.T. has to be paid on the entry of the goods
within the Corporation limits and, therefore, the
petitioners will have to first pay the tax and then
claim refund, if any.
15. Upon hearing both sides, in my view, the
present writ petitions are maintainable and in view
of the provisions of Sub Rule 6 of Rule 28 of the
Rules, the present petitioners will be entitled for
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
16 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
claiming exemption from payment of the L.B.T. in
respect of the value of the goods used for the
purpose of such export for the reasons to follow.
R E A S O N S
16. History of filing of the earlier writ
petitions and the orders therein, as detailed
supra, would show that the issue is being agitated
and reagitated between the parties time and again
in this Court. Besides this, Rule 31 of the Rules
provide as under:
“ 31. Determination of disputed questions.
(1) If any question arises, otherwise than
in any proceedings before a Court, or
before the Commissioner has commenced
assessment or reassessment of a dealer of a
person, under rule 33 or 34, whether for
the purpose of these rules, any local body
tax is payable in respect of any import of
particular goods into the City, or, if
local body tax is payable, the rate
thereof, the Commissioner may, on an
application made to him by a dealer or a
person in this behalf, make an order
determining such question.”
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
17 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
Section 406(6) of the Act is as under :
“ 406. Appeals when and to whom to lie.
(1) Subject to the provisions hereinafter
contained, appeals against any rateable
value or the capital value, as the case
may be or tax fixed or charged under this
Act shall be heard and determined by the
judge.
(2) No such appeal shall been entertained
unless
(a) it is brought within fifteen days
after the accrual of the cause of
complaint;
(b) in the case of an appeal against
a rateable value or a capital value, as
the case may be a complaint has previously
been made to the Commissioner as provided
under this Act and such complaint has been
disposed of;
(c) in the case of an appeal against
any tax including interest and penalty
imposed in respect of which provision
exists under this Act for complaint to be
made to the Commissioner against the
demand, such complaint has previously been
made and disposed of;
(d) in the case of an appeal against
any amendment made in the assessment book
for property taxes during the official
year, a complaint has been made by the
person aggrieved within twenty one days
after he first received notice of such
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
18 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
amendment, and his complaint has been
disposed of;
(e) in the case of an appeal a tax,
or in the case of an appeal made against a
rateable value or the capital value, as
the case may be the amount of the disputed
tax claimed from the appellant or the
amount of the tax chargeable on the basis
of the disputed rateable value, or the
capital value, as the case may be upto the
date of filing, the appeal has been
deposited by the appellant with the
Commissioner.
(2A) Where the appeal is not filed in
accordance with the provisions of clauses
(a) to (e) of subsection (2), it shall be
liable to be summarily dismissed.
(3) In the case of any appeal entertained
by the Judge, but not heard by him, before
the date of commencement of the
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations
(Amendment) Act, 1975, the Judge shall not
hear and decide such appeal, unless the
amount of the disputed tax claimed from
the appellant, or the amount of the tax
chargeable on the basis of the disputed
rateable value, as the case may be, upto
the date of filing the appeal has been
deposited by the appellant with the
Commissioner, within thirty days from the
date of publication of a general notice by
the Commissioner in this behalf in the
local newspapers. The Commissioner shall
simultaneously serve on each such
appellant a notice under sections 473 and
474 and other relevant provisions of this
Act for intimating the amount to be
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
19 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
deposited by the appellant with him.
(4) As far as possible, within fifteen
days from the expiry of the period of
thirty days prescribed under subsection
(3), the Commissioner shall intimate to
the Judge the names and other particulars
of the appellants who have deposited with
him the required amount within the
prescribed period and the names and other
particulars of the appellants who have not
deposited with him such amount within such
period. On receipt of such intimation, the
Judge shall summarily dismiss the appeal
of any appellant who has not deposited the
required amount with the Commissioner
within the prescribed period.
(5) In the case of any appeal, which may
have been entertained by the Judge before
the date of commencement of the Act
aforesaid or which may be entertained by
him on and after the said date, the Judge
shall not here and decide such appeal,
unless the amount of the tax claimed by
each of the bills, which may have been
issued since the entertainment of the
appeal, is also deposited, from time to
time, with the Commissioner in the first
month of the half year to which the
respective bill relates. In case of
default by the appellant at any time
before the appeal is decided, on getting
an intimation to that effect from the
Commissioner, the Judge shall summarily
dismiss the appeal,
(6) An appeal against the demand notice
in respect of levy of cess under Chapter
XIA or the Local Body Tax under Chapter
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
20 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
XIB shall lie,
(i) to the Deputy Commissioner, when the
demand notice is raised by the Cess
Officer or any other officer, not being
the Deputy Commissioner;
(ii) to the Commissioner, when the demand
notice is raised by the Deputy
Commissioner.
(7) The appeal under subsection (6) shall
be filed within fifteen days from the date
of the demand notice.
(8) No appeal under subsection (6) shall
be entertained by the Deputy Commissioner
or, as the case maybe, the Commissioner
unless the amount of the disputed tax
claimed from the appellant has been
deposited by the appellant with the
Commissioner.”
17. Mr. P.M. Shah, learned senior counsel
submitted that the reading of the provisions of
section 406(6) of the Act together with Rule 31 of
the Rules would show that if issue would be as to
whether the L.B.T. is payable in respect of any
import of particular goods into the city, then as
per the provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules, the
Commissioner has to pass an order determining such
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
21 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
question on an application made to him by the
dealer while the provisions of section 406(1) would
be applicable to tax “fixed or charged”. It was
further submitted that Rule 31 of the Rules is a
stand alone provision. There is no specific
statutory mechanism provided in the Act to
challenge the validity of the order passed by the
Commissioner under this Rule. Further, relying on
the ratio of “ Balkrushna Vora Vs. Poona Municipal
Corporation ” (1963) Mh.L.J. 325 (Division Bench),
it was submitted that if the legality of the tax
which is sought to be levied, looking into the
general scheme of the Act, by the words “ tax fixed
and charged ” what is meant was the exact amount or
quantum of the tax and not the legality of the same
can be challenged as per the provisions of sub
section 1 of section 406 of the Act. It was
further submitted that even if there is an equally
efficacious remedy, there is no absolute bar and,
therefore, taking into consideration the history
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
22 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
that the parties are litigating the same issue time
and again in this Court, the present writ petitions
can very well be entertained. He relied over the
ratio of various cases including “ Jet Airways
(India) Ltd., Mumbai and another V. Municipal
Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and others” 2012(3)
Mh.L.J. 841 ”
18. On the other hand, Mr. R.N. Dhorde,
learned senior counsel instructed by Mr. A.M. Karad
for the respondent Municipal Corporation
submitted that in the case of “ Wandleside National
Conductors Ltd. V. Municipal Corporation for the
City of Pune and others ” 1989 Mh.L.J. 755 , the High
Court has ultimately declared that the writ
petition was not maintainable as alternate remedy
was available. Even the competence of levy of tax
is challenged, still then, the provisions of
section 406 of the Act is held to be an equally
efficacious remedy in the case of “ Sargam Foods
Pvt. Ltd. and anr. V. State of Maharashtra and
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
23 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
ors. ” 2010(6) Bom.C.R. 465.
19. Upon hearing both the sides, in my view,
the provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules is a stand
alone provision. Further when the legality of the
levying of the L.B.T. is challenged, this Court has
time and again entertained the writ petitions and
directed the Commissioner to decide the issue by
taking into consideration the provisions of Sub
Rule 6 of Rule 28 of the Rules. In the
circumstances, the present writ petitions are
maintainable.
20. As regards the merit of the case, the
argument of Mr. R.N. Dhorde is two fold. He
submitted that once the goods are imported for
consumption, use or sale, then as per the
provisions of section 31A of section 2 of the Act,
the importer will have to pay the L.B.T. Relying
on the similar provisions regarding octroi as found
in the Act and the authorities thereupon,
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
24 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
Mr. Dhorde further expounded the argument to the
effect as to what is meant by sale, consumption and
use. The tobacco brought for cleaning was held to
be consumption in “ M/s. Anwarkhan Mahboob Co. V.
The State of Bombay and others” AIR 1961 S.C. 213.
Crushing of uncrushed salt was also held as
consumption in “ Kathiawar Industries Ltd. V.
Jaffrabad Municipality ” (1979) 4 SCC 56 .
21. Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel does not
dispute the principle. According to him, the
present petitioner would have been liable to pay
the L.B.T. as the raw material is processed but for
the provisions of Sub Rule 6 of Rule 28 of the
Rules. He submitted that the exemption of payment
from the L.B.T. itself means that L.B.T. was
required to be paid, however, exemption from
payment is granted if after use or consumption,
i.e. after process, the goods are exported out of
India.
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
25 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
22. It would be worthwhile to reproduce Sub
Rule 6 of Rule 28 of the Rules, which runs as
under:
“28.
Exemption in certain cases
…
(6) The register dealer who is exporting
the goods outside the territory of India,
shall be exempt from the levy of the Local
Body Tax in respect of the value of the
goods used for the purpose of such export.”
(Emphasis supplied)
. The provision, as is explained by the
State Government in its additional affidavit is
selfexplanatory. It exempts levy of the L.B.T. in
respect of the value of the goods “used for the
purposes of such export.” In the circumstances,
the Municipal Corporation will have to grant
exemption from payment of L.B.T. in respect of the
value of such goods which are used for the purposes
of the export.
23. Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior counsel in the
alternative submitted that the petitioners would be
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
26 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
first required to pay the L.B.T. on the goods
imported and, thereafter, claim the refund in view
of the exemption. He therefore submitted that the
petitioners would be required to deposit the
amount. In the writ petition of the present
petitioners, we are not concerned with the manner
and mechanism of deposit or refund etc. of the
L.B.T. Reading of the rules would show that the
registered dealer is required to pay the L.B.T.
th
etc. on or before 10 day of the month next
following the month to which such payment relates.
Thereafter, he has to furnish six monthly and
annual returns in form No. EI and EII by showing
the deductions, interalia, for exemption under
Rule 28 of the Rules. Even the Commissioner is
empowered under Rule 29(3) of the Rules to specify
different periods and dates for different dealers
or classes of registered dealers etc. for the
purposes of furnishing of returns. There is a
mechanism for deciding the dispute regarding the
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
27 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
assessment.
24. In the circumstances, the following
order:
I) All the Writ Petitions are allowed without
any order as to costs.
II) In Writ Petition no.9718 of 2012, the
impugned order dated 17/11/2012 passed by
respondent no.3 the Commissioner, Aurangabad is
hereby quashed and set aside.
III) In Writ Petition no. 289 of 2014, the
nd
impugned orders dated 22 February, 2012 and dated
th
16 December, 2013 passed by respondent no.3 the
Deputy Commissioner, Aurangabad respectively are
hereby quashed and set aside.
IV) In Writ Petition no.10110 of 2012, the
impugned order dated 03/11/2012 passed by the
respondent no.2 the Deputy Commissioner,
Aurangabad is hereby quashed and set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
28 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
V) It is hereby held that the goods imported
in the Municipal Corporation area by the
petitioners in all these writ petitions shall be
exempted from the levy or collection of the Local
Body Tax in respect of the value of the goods used
for the purpose of export outside the territory of
India in the manner and as provided by the Bombay
Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (Local Body
Tax) Rules and the Orders specified thereunder time
to time.
VI) Rule in each of the Writ Petitions is
therefore made absolute in the above terms.
VII) Consequently, Civil Application No. 6092
of 2013 stands disposed of.
25. After pronouncement of the judgment,
Mr. Thigale submits that during the pendency of the
present petitions, interim payments were made by
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::
29 WP97182012+JUDGMENT
the respective writ petitioners in view of the
interim directions issued by this Court.
26. In the circumstances, refund, if any, may
be pressed by the petitioners after a period of six
(6) weeks.
27. In view of the above order, Civil
Application No.5493 of 2013 also stands disposed
of.
Sd/
(M.T. JOSHI)
JUDGE
arp/
::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:48:14 :::