Octroi refund rights survive procedural lapses where the scheme does not expressly make strict compliance a condition precedent.

The SC construed the octroi refund scheme as preserving the exporter's substantive right to refund where dutiable goods were exported after import into municipal limits. It held that the procedural requirements in rr. 34 to 39 governed the manner and verification of the refund application, but did not expressly make production of payment receipts or strict procedural compliance a condition for forfeiting the refund right. Rules 42 and 43 were confined to the specified classes of cloth and locally produced or manufactured goods. A construction that denied refund for non-compliance with every procedural step would defeat the scheme and was rejected, so the refund claim remained maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an exporter of dutiable goods was entitled to refund of octroi duty without producing receipts of payment of duty and without strict compliance with the procedural steps prescribed for claiming refund.

Analysis: Rule 27 conferred on the exporter of dutiable goods a right to refund of 7/8th of the duty paid when the goods were imported into the municipal limits. The procedural rules in rr. 34 to 39 prescribed the manner in which the application for refund was to be made and verified at the time of export, while rr. 42 and 43, properly read together, applied only to the specified classes of cloth and locally produced or manufactured goods. The rules did not expressly provide that failure to produce receipts or to follow the entire procedure would forfeit the substantive right to refund. Reading rr. 35 to 39 as eliminating the right altogether in cases of non-compliance would make the refund scheme nugatory, which was not a permissible construction.

Conclusion: The exporter was not disentitled to refund merely because receipts were not produced or the procedural requirements were not strictly shown to have been complied with, and the claim to refund was maintainable.

---