# P;·are Lal Bhargava v. State oj Rajasthan

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 699
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 15 to 19 of 1962
- **Bench:** L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah, J. C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-are-lal-bhargava-v-state-oj-rajasthan-2740
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Income ]'ax-Liability to tax of income of deceased personS'Uch income in hands of the legal representatives-Income of
the previo'Us year-Indian income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922),
s. 24.B.
Sub-section
(~) of s. 24B of the Indian Income-tax Act,
1922, provided that where a person dies his heirs and legal
representatives ate liable to pay out of the estate of the deceased
the tax assessed as payable by the deceased or any tax which
would have been payable under the Act by the deceased if he
had not died.
A who was one of the three partners in a firm of solicitors
died on July 7, 1949, and thereafter the partnership was carried
on by the other two partners till December 1, 1949, when R,
son of A, joined the firm as the third partner. After the death
of A the arrangement between the various partners in regard
to the realisations of the old outstandings was thal in respect
of the work done up to the death of A the realisations were to
be divided between A and the other two partners. The firm
1962
P;·are Lal Bhargava
v.
State oj Rajasthan
SubbtJ. Rao, J.
1962
Octohlr, 23.
1962
TM CommissWrwr of
lntflme-Tax, Bombay
City I, Bomba_y
v.
Am.,chand N. Skrajf
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP.
kept its accounts on cash basis. For each of the five assessment
years, 1950-1955, certain amounts were received by the heirs
and legal representatives of A out of the outstandings. Proceedings were started by the Income-tax Officer under s. 34 of the
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the aforesaid income,
and the various amounts were assessed to income-tax in the
hands of the respondents, the heirs an<l legal representatives of
A, ur.der s. 34 (I) (b) read withs. 24Bofthe Act, for the five
respective assessment years, l)!I the footing that the amounts
which were received by the heirs and legal representatives of A
after his death should be deemed by virtue of the words in
sub-s. (l) of s. 24B to be income received by A and liable to tax
under that sub-section.
He/,d, that the words "or any tax which would have been
payable by him under this Act if he had not died" under
s. 24B(l) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are restricted to
the income received by the deceased person before his death and
to the income received after his death by his heirs and legal
representatives in the "previous year" and which had not been
assessed but would have been assessed as income received by
him, if death had not. taken place. The provisions of s. 24B
do not extend to tax liability of the estate of a deceased person
beyond the previous or the account year in which that ,person
dies; Apart from s. 24B no assessment can be made in respect
of the income of a person after his death.
He/,d, that as the income was received after the expiry of
the previous year in which A died it was not liable to be taxed
as the income of A in the hands of his legal representatives in
the several years of assessment.
Allen v. Trekearne, (1938) 22 Tax Cas. 15, ElliB G ReW.
v. Commissioner of Income-tax Bo111b11y, 5 I. T. C. JOO and
Wallace Brother ,1; Go. Ltd. v. Gommis&ioner of Income-fll:i;,
Bombay City, [ 1948] 16 I. T. R. 2 40, referred to.

## Text

i S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
699
.Penal Code and, therefore, the courts have rightly
held .that the appellant had committed the offence
of theft.
No other point was pressed before us.
In the
result the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
BOMBAY CITY I, BOMBAY
v.
AMARCHAND N. SHROFF, BY HIS HEIRS
AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
(]. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH and J. C.
SHAH, JJ.)
Income ]'ax-Liability to tax of income of deceased personS'Uch income in hands of the legal representatives-Income of
the previo'Us year-Indian income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922),
s. 24.B.
Sub-section
(~) of s. 24B of the Indian Income-tax Act,
1922, provided that where a person dies his heirs and legal
representatives ate liable to pay out of the estate of the deceased
the tax assessed as payable by the deceased or any tax which
would have been payable under the Act by the deceased if he
had not died.
A who was one of the three partners in a firm of solicitors
died on July 7, 1949, and thereafter the partnership was carried
on by the other two partners till December 1, 1949, when R,
son of A, joined the firm as the third partner. After the death
of A the arrangement between the various partners in regard
to the realisations of the old outstandings was thal in respect
of the work done up to the death of A the realisations were to
be divided between A and the other two partners. The firm
1962
P;·are Lal Bhargava
v.
State oj Rajasthan
SubbtJ. Rao, J.
1962
Octohlr, 23.
1962
TM CommissWrwr of
lntflme-Tax, Bombay
City I, Bomba_y
v.
Am.,chand N. Skrajf
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP.
kept its accounts on cash basis. For each of the five assessment
years, 1950-1955, certain amounts were received by the heirs
and legal representatives of A out of the outstandings. Proceedings were started by the Income-tax Officer under s. 34 of the
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the aforesaid income,
and the various amounts were assessed to income-tax in the
hands of the respondents, the heirs an<l legal representatives of
A, ur.der s. 34 (I) (b) read withs. 24Bofthe Act, for the five
respective assessment years, l)!I the footing that the amounts
which were received by the heirs and legal representatives of A
after his death should be deemed by virtue of the words in
sub-s. (l) of s. 24B to be income received by A and liable to tax
under that sub-section.
He/,d, that the words "or any tax which would have been
payable by him under this Act if he had not died" under
s. 24B(l) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are restricted to
the income received by the deceased person before his death and
to the income received after his death by his heirs and legal
representatives in the "previous year" and which had not been
assessed but would have been assessed as income received by
him, if death had not. taken place. The provisions of s. 24B
do not extend to tax liability of the estate of a deceased person
beyond the previous or the account year in which that ,person
dies; Apart from s. 24B no assessment can be made in respect
of the income of a person after his death.
He/,d, that as the income was received after the expiry of
the previous year in which A died it was not liable to be taxed
as the income of A in the hands of his legal representatives in
the several years of assessment.
Allen v. Trekearne, (1938) 22 Tax Cas. 15, ElliB G ReW.
v. Commissioner of Income-tax Bo111b11y, 5 I. T. C. JOO and
Wallace Brother ,1; Go. Ltd. v. Gommis&ioner of Income-fll:i;,
Bombay City, [ 1948] 16 I. T. R. 2 40, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos. 15 to 19 of 1962.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
October 10, 1958, of the Bombay High Court in
Income-tax Reference No .. 22 of 1958.
H. N. ~anyal, Additi.mu;l Solicitar-Geneml of
India, N. JJ. lforkTumis and R. N. Sachthey, for the
appellant.
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
701
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, J. B. Dadachnnji,
0. 0. Mathur and Raniwler Narain, for the respondents.
1962
The CommissiMtt' ~
Income-tax, Bombl
City !, Bomh•1
v.
1962. October, 23. The Judgment of the Court AmarchandN. Shro,
was delivered by
KAPUR, J.-These appeals pursuant to a certificate of the High Court of Bombay raise the question
of interpretation of s. 24B of the Income-tax Act in
an Income-tax Reference. The question
referred
was answered in the negative and against the Commissioner of Income-tax who is the appellant in these
appeals, the resrondents being the heirs and legal
representatives o one Amarchand N. Shroff deceased.
The appeals relate to the assessment years 1950-5 l,
1951-52, 1952·53, 195:J-54 and 1954-55.
Shortly stated the facts of the case are these :
Amarchand N. Shroff, Mangaldas and Hiralal were
partners in a firm of solicitors.
Am arch and died on
July 7, 19i9. Thereafter the partnership was carried
on by Mangaldas and Hiralal up to November 30,
1949, and on December 1, 1949, Ramesh son of
Amarchand who had by then qualified as a solicitor
joined the firm as the third partner.
After the death
of Amarchand the arrangement between the various
partners in regard to the realisations of the old outstandings wa~ that in respe,ct of the work done up to
the death of Amarchand the realisations were to be
divided amongst Amarchand, Mangaldas and Hiralal,
in respect of the work between July 8, 1949, and
November 30, 1949, the reali5ations were to be divided
between Mangaldas and Hiralal and in respect of
work done after December 1, 1949, the realisations
were to be divided amongst Mangaldas, Hiralal and
Ramesh. The firm kept its accounts on cash basis.
For the five assessment years 19.50-:'il to 1954-5.5 the
following amounts were
received : Rs. 37,847/-,
Rs.
43,162/-,
Rs.
34,899/-, Rs. 13,402/-
and
Kapur, J.
1962
rTP.e Commissioner
/ Jncome~taxiBombay
City I, Bombay
v.
&mar&hand N. Shro,ff
Kapur. J.
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
Rs. 32,523/- by the heirs and legal representatives of
Amarchand out of the outstandings. The Incometax Officer sought to tax these realisations. 1''or the
assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52 he assessed the
amounts in the hands of the heirs and legal representatives of Amarchand as a Hindu undivided family.
Against that order an appeal was taken to the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner and then to the
Appellate Tribunal.
The two members of the
Tribunal agreed in holding,
though for different
reasons, that the amounts were not the income of the
Hindu undivided family but merely represented
inheritance or realisations of the assets of Amarchand.
The matter was not pursued further by the
Revenue but sometime later proceedings were started
by the Income-tax Officer under s. 34 in respect of
the same income in the hands of "Amarchand
N. Shroff by his heirs and legal representatives".
The status of that entity was taken to be that of an
individual and not Hindu undivided family.
The
various amounts were assessed to income-tax in the
hands of the respondents under s. 34( 1) (b) read with
s. 24B of the Income-tax Act. The assessments so
made were for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52,
1952·53, 1953-54 and 1954-55. On appeal the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the
notice unper s. 34 could validly be served only for
the assessment years 1950-51 and notices for the
subsequent years were invalid. The assessments for
1951-52 to 1954-55 were therefore quashed.
The
Commissioner of Income-tax took an appeal to the
Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal held that
assessment could not be made on Amarchand and
thats. 24B had no application to the income received
after the death of Amarchand and that it was capital
receipt and not revenue receipt.
The order of the
Appellate Assistant Commissioner was therefore upheld. On the application of the Commisliioner of
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
703
Income·tax the following question of law was referred
to the High Court:-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the .::ase, the sums of Rs. 37,847/., Rs.
43,162/·,
Rs.
34,899/-, Rs. 13,402/-
and
Rs. 32,523/- were assessable to income-tax in
the hands of the assessee "Am arch and N. Shroff
by his legal heirs and representatives'' in the
five respective years under reference ?".
The High Court answered the question in the negative. It held that apart from s. 24E of the Incometax Act the amounts were not taxable and that the
section had no application to the case.
It was argued by counsel for the Commissioner
of Income-tax that on a correct interpretation of
s. 24B the amounts which were received by the heirs
and legal representatives of Amarchand after his
death should be deemed by the fiction incorporated
in sub-s. (1) to be income received by Amarchand
and liable to tax under s. 24B (1) of the Income-tax
Act. In other words the respondents as heirs and legal
representatives of the deceased Amarchand were liable
to pay out of the estate of the deceased Amarchand on
those amounts to the extent of the estate as the estate
was liable for tax on the amounts, received bv the
heirs and legal representatives jmt as the deceased
Amarchancl would have been had he not died. The
ell'?hasis was on words in s. 24B ( 1) "or any tax
which would have heen payable by him under this
Act if he had not di:d" Section 24B is as fnllows : -
S. ~4B '"I'<f..i: of decer•sed per.son payr•ble by represr:nf,atzve-
( l) Where a person dies, his executor, administrator or other legal representative shall be
liable to pay out of the estate of the deccasr.d person to the extent to which the estate
1962
The CommissUmtr
of Income-tnx,Bombt
City I, Bomb~-v
v.
Amarchand N. Shro..,
Kapur, J.
1962
Tht Commissiont r
f ltJCome-tax,BomBay
City I, Bombal
v.
-trruzrchand }/. Shro..ff
Kapur, J.
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
is capable of meeting the charge the tax
assessed as payable by such person or any
tax which would have been payable by him
under this Act if he had not died.
(2) Where a person dies before the publication
of the notice referred to in sub-section ( 1)
of section 22 or before he is served with a
notice under sub-section (2) of section 22
or section 34, as the case may be, his
executor,
administrator or other legal
representative shall, on the serving of the
notico under sub-section (2) of section 22
or under s. 34, as the case may be, comply
therewith and the Income-tax Officer may
proceed to assess the total income of the
deceased person as if such executor, administrator or other legal representative
were the assessee.
(3) Where a person dies, without having furnished a return which he has been required
to furnish under the provisions of section 22,
or having furnished a return which the
Income-tax Officer has reason to believe
to be incorrect or incomplete, the Incometax Officer mav make an assessment of the
total income of such person and determine
the tax payable by him on the basis of
such assessment,
and for this purpose
may by the issue of the appropriate notice
which would have had to be served upon the
deceased person had he survived require any
accounts, documents or other evidence which
he might under the provisions of sections 22
and 23 have requind from the deceased
person.''
Sub-section (1) provides that where a person dies his
heirs and legal representatives are liable to pay out
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
705
of the estate of the· deceased the tax assessed as payable by the deceased or any tax which would have
been payable under the Act by the deceased if he
had not died.
According to the submission of counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax the words of
sub-s. (1) "or any tax which would have been payable by him under this Act if he had not died" mean
that irrespective of the date of receipt of income
receivable by a person, if the income is received by
his heirs and legal representatives after his death,
they are liable for payment of the tax just as the
deceased would have been liable when the income
was received had he been living. But this interpretation is not in accord with the language used in
s.24B.
All the sub-sections have to be read together.
Sub-section ( 1) can be divided into two parts; ( 1)
when the income of the deceased was . assessed
before his death and (2) where the income was not
so assessed but it would have been liable to tax had
he not died. The second part or the words above
quoted when read with sub-ss. (2) and (3) show that
they are confined to cases therein mentioned. They
show that those words also have to be restricted to
the income received by the deceased person before
his death and to the income received after his death
by his heirs
and legal representatives but in the
"previous" year and which had not been assessed but
would have been assessed as income received by him
if death had not taken
place.
See Allen v. Trehearne(') wher.e the words "if he had not died" were
interpreted. Sub-section (2) provides that if a person
dies before the publication of the public notice under
s.22 (1) or before a notice is served on him under
sub-ss. 2 of s. 22 or s. 34 then the Income-tax Officer
may proceed to compute or assess the total income of
the
deceased person as if the heirs and legal
representatives
were
the
assessees.
Sub-section
(3) provides that when a person dies before a return
is furnished by him under the provisions of s.22 or
dies after having furnished the return which the
(I) (1938) 22 Ta"- 0.1. Ill.
IH2
Tiu O.-Uriln,,
of lncome-tax,Bombo;,
City I, Bombay
v.
Amarehand N, Shroff•
Kaput, J.
1962
Th't Commissioner
of /ncome-tax,Bombay
City II, Bombay
v.
Amarchand N. Shroff
Kapur, J.
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP.
Income-tax Officer finds incorrect or incomplete then
the Income-tax· Officer can make assessment on the
total income of the deceased person and certain other
consequences follow but in all the cases enumerated
above the language used in sub-ss. 1, 2 and 3 of
s.24B contemplates that the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased person are liable to pay incometax out of his
estate (1) where assessment had
already been made and (2) where he dies before the
assessment but the income was received before his
death or by his heirs and legal representatives after
his death which occurs during the previous year. If he
dies before the publication of the notice under s.22(1)
or before the service under s.22(2) or after the service
but before he has furnished
a return or filed an
incorrect. or incomplete return then the Incometax Officer should make an assessment of the total
income of such deceased person and determine the
tax payable thereupon. Section 24B does not authorise
levy of tax on receipts by the legal representatives
of a deceased person in the years of assessment
succeeding the year of account being the previous
year in which such person died.
Income-tax is exigible in reference to a person's total income of the previous year. The question before us is whether the income which was received subsequent to the previous year in which Amarchand died is liable to be assessed to income-tax
under s. 24B as his income in the hands of his heirs
and legal representatives.
In the present case the
accounts were kept on cash basis. The assessee under
the Act has ordinarily to be a living person and cannot be a dead person because his legal personality
ceases on his death. Bys. 24B the legal personality
of a deceased assessee is extended for the duration
of the entire previous year in the course of which he
died arid therefore the income received by him before
his death and that received by his heirs and legal
representatives after his death but in tqat previou~
1 S.C.R.
SUPREJ\1E GOUR T REPORTS 707
year becomes assessable to income-tax in the relevant
assessment year.
The section was
enacted by the
Legislature to bring to tax, after his death, income
received during his lifetime, and fill up the lacuna
which was pointed out by the High Court in Ellis
O. Reid v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay(').
Any income received in the year subsequent to the
previous or the account year cannot be called income
received by the person deceased.
The provisions
of s. 24B do not
extend to
tax liability of the
estate of a deceased person beyond the previous or
the account year in which
that person dies.
In
support of his contention counsel for the Commissioner
of Income-tax relied upon the scheme of the Act as
given in Additional income-tax Officer v. R. Alfred(').
There is nothing said in that case which supports
the contention raised by the Commissioner of Incomctax. Reliance was next plact>d on certain observations in a judgment of the Bombay High Court
in re. B. 111. Kam,lar( 3).
Those observations al so are
of no assistance to the Commissioner of Income tax,
Kania,J., (as he then was) there observed that the
question whether a particular amount was income
or not had nothing to do with the time of its receipt
and the question of receipt was material only for the
purpose of determining whether on that amount tax
was to
be levied under the Act in the year of
assessment.
That was a case where a c@nsulting
engineer discontin ucd his practice as such from
February 15, 1938, and he received a sum of money
representing the outstanding- professiollal fees earned
by him prior to the discontinuance of his practice
but realised by him during the Calendar year which
was the previous year.
The assessee was keeping his
accounts on cash basis and he contended that as he
had discontinued his profession in the previous year
the source had come to an end and the amounts
received by him were not liable to income-tax. It
was
held that the income was assessable.
The
assessee in that case was still alive when the income
(1) 5 I.T.C. 100.
(2) [1962] 44 I.T.R.1f2, 445.
(S) [1946] 141.T.R. 10·
1962
Tht Commissioner
of lncome~tax_.Bomba;,
City 1, Bomba)'
v.
Am11rc!tand .1V. S'hruff
Kapur, J.
1962
Tu Commissioner
f lncom1·tax,Bombay
City I, Bomb 1'1
v.
4marclumd N. Shroff
Kapur, ].
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
was received by him and s. 24B had no application
to the facts of the case.
Counsel also relied on the observations of
Derbyshire, C.J., in re 8reernati Usharani Shoudhurani('). In that case the managing agent of a limited
company died on May 12, 1938.
At the time of
his death there was a credit with the company of a
sum of money on account of commission earned by
him and due to him prior to the date of his death.
This sum was paid after his death in the previous
year 1938-39 and was sought to be taxed under
s. 24B of the Income-tax Act.
It was held that this
income was
taxable.
Derbyshire_, CJ., said at
p. 20::1 that the assessee who was the widow had
received the salary due to her husband; that the
Income-tax Officer was entitled to assess the total
income of the deceased person as if the legal
representatives were the asscssees and the amount
was liable to tax under s. '.'4B (1), but in that case
also the amount was received by the widow in the
previous year and it was earned by the deceased
during the previous year.
The correct position i> that apart from s.24B
no assessment can be made in respect of the income
of a person after his death. See Ellis C.
Reid v.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay('). In that case,
and that was a case before s. 24B was enacted, a
person was served with a notice under s. 22(2) of
the Income-tax Act but no return was made within
the period specified and he died. It was held that
no assessment could be made under s. :?3(4) of the
Act after his death.
At p.106 it was observed:-
"It is to be noticed that there is throughout
the Act no reference to the decease of a person
on whom the tax has been originally charged,
and it is very difficult to suppose the omission
to have been
unintentional. It must have
(1) [1942) IO l.T.R.. 199.
(ll) 51.T.O. 100,
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT RtPORTS
709
been present to the mind of the legislature that
whatever privileges the payment of income-tax
may confer. the privilege of immortality is
not amongst them. Every person liable to
pay tax must necessarily die and, in practically
every case, before the last instalment has been
collected, and the legislature has not chosen
to make any provisions expressly dealing with
assessment of, or recovering payment from the
estate of a deceased person".
The individual assessee has ordinarily to be a living
person and there can be no assessment on .a dead
person and the assessment is a charge in respect of
the income of the previous year and not a charge in
respect of the income of the year of assessment as
measured by the income of the previous year.
Walk!ce JJrothers
& Co. Ltd. v Cornrnissioner of
lncouw-tnx, Bornbuy City(1).
By s. 24B the legal
representatives have, by fiction of law, become
assessees as provided in that section but that fiction
cannot be extended beyond the object for which it
was enacted.
As was observed by this Court in
Bengal Immunity Cu. Ltd. v. 'l'he State of Bihar(')
legal fictions arc only for a definite purpose and they
are limited to the purpose for which they are created
and should not be extended beyond that legitimate
field.
In the present case the fiction is limited to the
cases provided in the three sub-sections of s. 24B and
cannot be extended further than the liability for the
income received in the previous year.
In the present case the amounts which are
sought to be taxed and which have been held not
to be liable to tax are those which were not received
in the previous year and are therefore not liable to tax
in the several years of assessment.
It cannot be said
that they were incom~ which may be deemed by
fiction to have been received by the dead person and
therefore they are not liable to be taxed as income
(I) (!!Ma) 16J.T.R.:H0,244.
(2) (1~] 28,C.R.603, M
1962
The Ctmmissioner of
1.,..m•-Tu Bm•JI
City I, Bomb9
v.
ArMrclwnd N. Shr•.ff
Kapur, J.
1.962
Th6 Commissioner of
/ncot111-tizx, Bombap
Cit'JI 1, Bombay
v.
Amarchand N. Skroj}
Kapur, J.
1962
Octob1r, 23.
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
of the deceased Amarchand and are not liable to be
taxed in the hands of the heirs and legal representatives who cannot be deemed to be assessees for the
purpose of assessment in regard to those years.
In our view the High Court rightly answered
the question in the negative and against the Commissioner of Income-tax. The appeals therefore fail
and are dismissed with costs.
Appeals dismissed.
BAGALKOT CITY MUNICIPALITY
v.
BAGALKOT CEMENT CO.
(S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, M.
HIDAYATULLAH and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Octroi Duty-Municipal District, connotation of-Octroi
limits equatd with municipal district-Extension of municipal
di-strict-Whether octroi limifll also extended-If extended area
liable to octroi duty-Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901
(Bom. 3 of 1901), 88. 3(5), 4, J8, 59-Bombay General Ohuses
Act, 1904 (Bom. 1of1904), s. 20.
The appellant nmnicipality
imposed octroi duty
on
certain goods brought within the octroi limits. The by-laws
fixed the octroi limits to be the same as the Municipal District.
Section 4 of the Bombay District Municipal Act 1901, under
which the municipality was constituted, empowered the
Government to declare any local area to be a municipal district.
At the time of the imposition of the octroi duty the respondent's
factory was situated outside the municipal district and was
not subject to the octroi duty. Subsequently, the Government
extended the municipal district so that the factory came to be
included within that district. The appellant contended that
upon such extension its octroi
lim~ts also stood extended to
include the factory and the respondent became liable to pay
octroi duty in respect of goods brought into the factoty.
/·