Wrongful octroi levy can still attract statutory notice where made under colour of municipal authority and rules.

A wrongful octroi levy may still count as an act purportedly done under the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 if it is made under an existing statutory power and a claimed interpretation of the rules. On that basis, section 206 notice was required before a refund claim could be maintained. The prior notice covered only the amounts and period then within scope, so later payments added by amendment could not be recovered without a fresh notice. The decree was therefore reduced, the municipality succeeded to that extent, and the broader recovery claim failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the municipality's levy of octroi on fuel oil, though ultimately held wrongful, was an act done or purported to have been done in pursuance of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 so as to attract notice under section 206; (ii) whether the plaintiffs could recover amounts paid after the statutory notice period without serving a fresh notice.

Issue (i): Whether the municipality's levy of octroi on fuel oil, though ultimately held wrongful, was an act done or purported to have been done in pursuance of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 so as to attract notice under section 206.

Analysis: The levy was made under the municipality's general power to impose octroi on imported goods and under Item 73 of Schedule A to its octroi rules and by-laws. Even though the construction placed on "oils used for machinery" was wrong, the act was not outside all colour of authority. A wrongful levy made under an existing statutory power and under a claimed interpretation of the rules was treated as an act purported to have been done in pursuance of the Act, and not as a wholly unauthorised or outrageous act lacking any semblance of authority.

Conclusion: Section 206 applied, and notice of the claim for refund was necessary.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs could recover amounts paid after the statutory notice period without serving a fresh notice.

Analysis: The notice given on 2 May 1947 covered the amounts already within its scope, but it did not extend to later payments forming part of the enlarged claim introduced by amendment. Recovery beyond the period and amount covered by the notice was therefore not maintainable.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled only to the amount covered by the valid notice period, and the additional claim was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The decree was reduced, the municipality's appeal succeeded to that extent, and the cross-objections failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A levy made under an existing statutory power and under a claimed but erroneous interpretation of the governing rules may still be an act purported to have been done in pursuance of the Act, thereby attracting the statutory notice requirement for recovery claims.

---