Octroi refund cannot be denied for procedural lapse when substantive statutory conditions are otherwise satisfied.

A writ petition was not rejected for alternate remedy or delay because no alternate remedy was shown with specificity and repeated representations negatived fatal laches. Under Section 194(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, refund of octroi turned on substantive compliance with the written declaration requirement and certification by the empowered officer. The Court treated certification by the Octroi Inspector as a procedural step rather than a condition precedent, and held that omission of that procedure could not defeat refund where the petitioner had otherwise satisfied the statutory conditions through the relevant contract and exemption documents. The rejection was therefore set aside and the refund claim upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the grounds of alternate remedy and delay. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of octroi under Section 194(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act despite production of a declaration duly certified by the Octroi Inspector.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the grounds of alternate remedy and delay.

Analysis: The availability of an alternate remedy was not shown with any specificity, and the petitioner was justified in invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As to delay, the Court held that the petitioner's repeated representations and pursuit of the claim negatived any fatal laches, and relief cannot be denied solely on the passage of time where the grievance is otherwise sustainable.

Conclusion: The preliminary objections of alternate remedy and delay were rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of octroi under Section 194(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act despite production of a declaration duly certified by the Octroi Inspector.

Analysis: Section 194(2) was construed as requiring only two substantive conditions for refund, namely, a written declaration that the goods were imported for Government use and a certificate from an empowered officer certifying that the goods had become Government property. The petitioner satisfied these substantive requirements through the contract documents, exemption certificate and goods receiving certificate. The requirement of a declaration duly certified by the Octroi Inspector was treated as procedural, not a condition precedent to eligibility. Failure to comply with that procedure, especially when the petitioner had explained the omission and sought correction, could not defeat the substantive right to refund.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund of octroi, and the procedural lapse did not disqualify the claim.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection was set aside and the refund claim was upheld on the basis of substantive compliance with the statutory refund conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal exemption or refund provision contains identifiable substantive eligibility conditions, a procedural lapse cannot defeat the benefit once those substantive conditions are satisfied.

---