# THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, RAIPUR v. PHOOLCHAND AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 151
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959-10-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 356 and 357 of 1961
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, J. L. Kapur, M. Hidayatullah, J. c. SHAH, J. R. Mudholkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-municipal-committee-raipur-v-phoolchand-and-others-2411
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Municipality-Bye-law-In!erpretation of-Levy of octroi
on sarso oil seeds-Rate-Rules of the Raipur Municipality,
1951, Sobedule of goods, items 4, 44.
The respondents carried on business of extraction of oil
from oil seeds. The appellant Municipality charged octroi
duty at Rs. 4-l l ·O percent ad valorem under item 44 of the
schedule of goods attached to the Rules framed by the Municipality. The respondents' case was that they were liable
to pay octroi under item 4 of the said Rules at the rate of 2 as.
per maund. The schedule consisted of eight classes with 67
items of goods, the serial number running consecutively. Class
I was headed "Articles of food or drink or use for men or
animals". Item 4, which was in that class, read "Oil seeds
every description not
specifically mentioned else where".
Class V was headed "Drugs, spices and gums, toilet requisites
and perfumes'' and item 44 which was in that class read "betelnuts, gums, spices .... sarso ...... etc. and known as kirana"
(groceries). The single Judge who heard the matter in the first
instance held in favour of the appellant but the court of appeal
held in favour of the respondent.
Held, that the view taken by the Court of appeal must
be upheld.
The words "not specifically mentioned elsewhere" in item
4 of the Schedule must mean mention as an oil-seed.
The words
'"known as Kirana" in item 44 clearly
indicated that sarso fell within its ambit only as a spice or as
K irana and not as an oil-seed. Although there could be no
doubt that sarso as an oil-seed was the same thing as Kirsna,
but the intention behind the bye·law to charge oil seeds at a
lesser rate was clear and must be given effect to.

## Text

(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
151
THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, RAIPUR
v.
PHOOLCHAND AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH,
J. c. SHAH and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Municipality-Bye-law-In!erpretation of-Levy of octroi
on sarso oil seeds-Rate-Rules of the Raipur Municipality,
1951, Sobedule of goods, items 4, 44.
The respondents carried on business of extraction of oil
from oil seeds. The appellant Municipality charged octroi
duty at Rs. 4-l l ·O percent ad valorem under item 44 of the
schedule of goods attached to the Rules framed by the Municipality. The respondents' case was that they were liable
to pay octroi under item 4 of the said Rules at the rate of 2 as.
per maund. The schedule consisted of eight classes with 67
items of goods, the serial number running consecutively. Class
I was headed "Articles of food or drink or use for men or
animals". Item 4, which was in that class, read "Oil seeds
every description not
specifically mentioned else where".
Class V was headed "Drugs, spices and gums, toilet requisites
and perfumes'' and item 44 which was in that class read "betelnuts, gums, spices .... sarso ...... etc. and known as kirana"
(groceries). The single Judge who heard the matter in the first
instance held in favour of the appellant but the court of appeal
held in favour of the respondent.
Held, that the view taken by the Court of appeal must
be upheld.
The words "not specifically mentioned elsewhere" in item
4 of the Schedule must mean mention as an oil-seed.
The words
'"known as Kirana" in item 44 clearly
indicated that sarso fell within its ambit only as a spice or as
K irana and not as an oil-seed. Although there could be no
doubt that sarso as an oil-seed was the same thing as Kirsna,
but the intention behind the bye·law to charge oil seeds at a
lesser rate was clear and must be given effect to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals
Nos. 356 and 357 of 1961.
Appeals by special leave and certificate from
the judgments and orders dated October 16, 1959,
and February 16, 1960, of the M.1dhya Pradesh
High Court in L. P. A. No. 93 of 1957 and Miso.
Petition No. 254 of 1959 respectively.
Oct•ber 20.
1961
1b1 It .. i<i/>al
Conlmilltt, Rai/>ur
v.
Phoow-J
HiJli1attd/oh J,
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
~·
S. T. Desai and N. H. liingorani, for the
appellant.
M. /(. Nambiar, S. N. Andley, Ramuhwar Nath
B ncl P. L. Vohra, for respondent No. I.
1960. October 20. The Judgment of the Court
was delivorcd by
HWAYATULLAH, J.-These two appeals by
special leave h>1vc been filed by the .Municipal
Committee, l{aipur, against two different respondents, who carry on business of extraction of oil
from oil ~eeds. 'l'he case involves an interpretation
of the Bye-laws of the .Municipal Committee and
the determination of octroi duty which wa11 payable
by the respondents in the relevant years of asseBSment on sarso oil seed.R brought by them within the
a.re.a of the appellant Committee for purposes of
their business. The Municipal Committee demanded an ad valorem octroi duty Rs. 4-11-0 per cent
from the respondents, claiming to levy it under
item 44 of the Schedule of goods liable to octroi
duty in the Raipur Municipality, appended to the
Rules framed on June 4, 1951. The respondents,
on the other hand, contended that a duty of 2
annae per maund was leviable under item 4 of the
aame Schedule, which covered the case of oil seeds.
The respondents made representations described as appeals, but were unsuccessful. Their demand
for refund of octroi duty paid by them waa refused,
and they, theref01e, filed petitions under Art. 226
of the Constitution in the High Court of Nu.gpur
(later, of Madhya Pradesh) against the appellant,
alleging, inter alia, that this imposition of octroi
duty ad valorem at Rs. 4-11-0 per cent on Barso oil
seeds as against other oil seeds was ultra viru the
Municipal Committee under .A1:t.
14 of the
Constitution. They also averred that ootroi duty
was properly leviable under item 4 and not under
item 44. In the High Court, the petition out of
which Civil Appeal No. 356 of 1961 arises, was
heard by a learned single JudgP, who held that
.:
•
.,,
'
-I
( 1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
153
sarso oil seeds were chargeable to duty under item
44 and not under item 4. From the order of the
learned single Judge, it does not appear that the
constitutional question was urged before him.
Against this order, a Letters Patent Appeal was
filed, and the Divisional Bench, which heard the
appeal, held, disagreeing with the learned single
Judge, that duty was properly leviable only under
item 4.
Before the Divisional Bench also, it does
not appear that t.he constitutional question was
argued. The petition, out of whit>h Civil Appeal
No. 357 of 1961 arises, was heard by a Divisional
Bench, which,
following the earlier decision,
decided against the appellant Committee.
The entries in the Schedule of goods liable to
octroi duty in the Ra.ipur Municipality contain eight
classes of goods. Under them are grouped 67 items,
the serial numbers running consecutively through
all the classes. Class I is headed "Articles of food
or drink or mm for men or ani !llals". Item 4, which
i9 in that class re •ds "Oil-seeds of every description
not specifically mentioned elsewhere". Class Vis
headed "Drugs, spices and gums, toilet requisites
and perfumes", and item 44 reads "Betel-nuts,
gums, spices, Indiav heros and Indian raw medicines and drugs, such as nuts, ilaichi, laung, jaiphal,
jy,ipatri, dalchi11i, s<mt, katha, zeera, dkania garlic,
dry chillies, pEpper, ahahzeero, maithi, sarao ... etc.
and known a kirana" (groceries). Item 4 is chargeable to a duty of 2 annas per maund, and item 44
is chargeable ad valorem at Rs. 4-11 ·0 per cent.
In addition to these entries, there is item 17, which
reads "Vegetable oils (not hydrogenated) not
provided elsewhere such as Tilli Tel, Barso Tel,
Al.9i Tel, Falli Tel, Narial Tel, Andi Tel", which
are chargeable to a duty of 4 annas per maund.
It is conceded on all hands that sar8o is an oil
seed, and if there was nothing more in the Schedule
a, duty of 2 annas per maund would be leviable on
1arao as an oil seed. The dispute arises, because
19'1
Thi MuniciμI
Committee, Ro;;Uf
v.
PhooW..,,J
H i"iPalulloh ].
1961
Tiu M1111icipol
Commi/lte, Raijnu
.
v.
Phoo/d1anJ
/fiJtJ_l'O(U/fah ],
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP.
sarso is mentioned again in Item 44 with a very
much higher duty, and it is contended by the
appellant Committ~e that the won:Li "not specifically
mentioned el sew here" in item 4 ex: elude sar8o from
that item, and that its specific mention in item 44
makes it. liable to the higher duty indicated there.
The learned single Judge of the High Court held in
favour of the lllunicipa.lity. According to him, t-his
reason was sound and tho higher duty demanded
\l'aB the proper duty p1yable. The Divisional Hench
on the other hand, points out that the two classes
(I and V) are entirely different. Class I deals with
articles of food or drink for use for men and animals
while Class V deals with drugs, spices and gums,
toilet requisites and perfumes. The division indicates clearly that goods belonging to one category are
uoi included in the goods belonging to the other.
The Divisional Ben~h also points out that item 4
must be read as it stood and the specific mention
must be in the same manner in which that entry
was framed.
Item 4 deals with "oil seeds", and
tho specific mention must be al! "oil-setds" elsewhere in the Schedule. It WM also argued for the
respondents that "elsewhere" meant elsewhere in
the same Class. but the appellant Committee pointed out that the serial numbers were all consecutive,
and that the specific mention could be anywhere
in the Schedule. The two arguments a.re equally
plausible, and nothing much, therefore turns upon
them.
In our opinion, the Divisional Bench of the
High Court was right when it said that the specific
mention elsewhere must be M oil seeds and not as
something else. Class V deals with spices and
groceries and the concluding words of item 44
"known as kirana" determine the ambit of that
item.
Though sarso might be mentioned there,
it must be taken to have been mentioned as a spice
or as kirana and not as oil seed. The cxfont of
item 4, which deals with oil seedl! of every descrip-
~·
.·-,,
(1) S.C.R. ·
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
155
' ,
•.
tion, could only be cut down by a specific mention
elsewhere of an item as an oil seed.
•
Item 44 contains fairly Ion;; list, ont of which
we have quoted a few illustrative items. Each of
these items is referable to the general heading
either as a drug or a spice or gum, etc. Sarso,
it is admitted,
is sold as kirana and as a
spice. The mentir,n of sarso there is limited by the
general heading to which it belongs, namely, a spice,
drug or herb sold as kirana. No doubt, sarso as
an oil seed is the same article as sarso sold as
kirana ; but we must take into account the intention
behind the bye-law and give effect to it. If it was
intended that sarso as an oil seed was to be taxed
in a special way, it would be reasonable to expect
that it would have be foung a specific in mention as
an oil seed with a different duty. One would not
expect that it would be included in a long list of
artieles of kirana and in this indirect way be taken
out from a very comprehensive entry like item 4,
where oil seeds of every description are mentioned.
Though the next argument is not conclusive
because there is no logic behind a tax, still it is
to be noticed that sarso oil (a maund of which, as
the affidavit of the respondents sh<;>ws, is expressed from three maunds of oil seed) bears only an
octroi duty of 4 annas per maund, while three
maunds of sarso oil seed under item 44, if it were
applicable, bear a duty of Rs. 4-3-6 per maund,
if the price of sarso is takl>n as Rs. 30 per maund
as stated in the affidavit. This leads to an
anomaly, whioh, in our opinion, could not have
been intended.
Finally, it may be aaid that if there be any
doubt, the Divisional Benoh. of the High Court
very properly resolved it in favour of the taxpayer.
We, therefore, hold that the judgment of the
High Court is correct, and dismiss these appeals
With costs.
Appeals dismissed.
J96J
Thi Municipal
Wmmittee, Raipur
••
Phoolchand
Hidayatullah J.