1966 (4) TMI 81 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of Octroi Levy Upheld under Article 301 & 304(b)

Shaik Sheriff Versus Mahado Seetha Ram and Ors.

The court held that the levy of octroi did not violate Article 301 and met the requirements of Article 304(b), constituting a reasonable restriction in ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of the levy of octroi under Article 301 and Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India.2. Whether groundnut oil qualifies as 'food' under the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act, 1956.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of the Levy of Octroi:Contentions and Legal Framework:The petitioner argued that the levy of octroi violated Article 301 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territory of India. It was contended that the Municipality failed to prove that octroi, which restricts trade freedom, is reasonable and in the public interest, thus making the authorizing provisions unconstitutional. Alternatively, it was argued that groundnut oil does not qualify as 'food' under the Act, and hence, no octroi can be levied on it.Judgment Analysis:The tax, known as octroi, is covered by Entry 52 of the State List, which includes 'Taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use, or sale therein.' The court examined whether the levy of octroi per se infringes the freedom of trade and commerce under Article 301 and if so, whether it is reasonable and required in the public interest as per Article 304(b).The court concluded that not every form of taxation constitutes an infringement of the freedom of trade and commerce. Taxation under authorized heads of the State List does not amount to a violation of Article 301 unless it directly restricts the free flow of goods. The court cited cases such as Atma Ram v. State of Bihar and H. P. Barua v. State of Assam, which supported this view.Application to the Present Case:The provisions relating to octroi do not regulate or control trade or commerce but aim to collect revenue for local bodies. The octroi rates are not so heavy as to curtail the freedom of trade. The court found that the tax is levied for bona fide purposes and does not put a heavy burden on trade, thus not infringing Article 301.Public Interest and Reasonableness:Even if the tax is considered a restriction on trade freedom, it meets the requirements of Article 304(b), which includes the President's previous sanction, reasonableness, and public interest. The court observed that octroi provides significant revenue for local bodies, which is used for civic amenities benefiting those who pay the tax. Therefore, the restriction is reasonable and in the public interest.Onus of Proof:The court emphasized the presumption of constitutionality of statutes and the burden on the petitioner to prove otherwise. The court referred to Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, which held that the President's consent indicates reasonableness and public interest.Conclusion on Constitutionality:The court concluded that the octroi does not violate Article 301 and meets the requirements of Article 304(b), making it a reasonable restriction in the public interest.2. Whether Groundnut Oil Qualifies as 'Food':Contentions and Legal Framework:The petitioner argued that groundnut oil is not 'food' within the meaning of the Hyderabad District Municipalities Act, 1956. The term 'food' is defined in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act but not in the District Municipalities Act.Judgment Analysis:The court applied the principle of interpreting statutes in pari materia, meaning statutes relating to the same subject matter should be construed together. The court referred to the definition of 'food' in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, which includes every article used by human beings for eating or drinking, including materials used in the preparation of such articles.Application to the Present Case:The court concluded that the term 'food' in the District Municipalities Act should be understood in the same way as defined in the Municipal Corporation Act. Groundnut oil, although not directly eatable, is used in preparing food and thus qualifies as 'food' within the meaning of the Act.Conclusion on Groundnut Oil:The court held that groundnut oil is 'food' under the District Municipalities Act and is taxable to octroi. The learned District Judge's decision that groundnut oil is not food was incorrect.Final Orders:- The revision petition was dismissed.- W.P. No. 107/64 was allowed with costs.- W.P. No. 10/64 was partly allowed, and the District Judge was directed to reconsider other items in light of the judgment.- W.P. No. 163/65, challenging the validity of octroi, was dismissed with costs.Orders accordingly.