| The appellant Panchayat levied octroi duty on goods coming within its limits by following the procedure laid down in rr. 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes and Fees Rules 1960. |
| Although the resolution finally levying octroi was passed on February 25, 1963 and the octroi limits were fixed by resolution dated March 17, 1963 the approval of the Collector to the octroi limits as required by r. 21 was not obtained till January 14, 1964. |
| When the Panchayat began collecting octroi on April 1, 1963 the respondent company appealed under section 124(5) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 to the Panchayat Samita. |
| The appeal was rejected as it was considered time barred under r. 5 of the Taxes & Fees Rules which required an appeal under section 124(5) of the Act to be filed within 60 days of the publication of the notice under r. 4. |
| On further appeal the Standing Committee, Zila Parishad, Nagpur decided in favour of the respondent company on the ground that the Panchayat had not complied with r. 21. |
| The Panchayat filed a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution. |
| The High Court upheld the findIng of the Standing Committee as to the effect of non compliance with r. 21. |
| It however further held that r. 5 in requiring all appeals under a. 124(5) of the Act to be filed within 60 days of the publication of the notice under section 4 was arbitrary and destructive of the right of appeal and therefore ultra vires. |
| The Panchayat appealed to this Court. |
| Held: (i) Octroi can be validly levied under r. 22 after following the procedure in rr. |
| 3 and 4 Rule 3 deals only with (i) selection of the tax and (ii) the rate at which it is to be levied. |
| Rule 4 deals with final publication of the notice levying octroi. |
| The levy of octroi under r. 22 read with rr. 3 and 4 does not require prior approval to the octroi limits by the Collector under r. 21. |
| [219D H; 220A C]. |
| (ii) However the octroi cannnot be validly collected before the octroi limits are approved by the Collector under r. 21. |
| Collections made earlier cannot be regularised by subsequent approval. |
| The plea on behalf of the appellant that the approval of the Collector on January 14, 1964 should relate back to April 1, 1963 could not be accepted. |
| [220 D E]. |
| (iii) Rule 5 is not invalid as it does not apply to all appeals under, section 124(5). |
| The rule follows rr. 3 and 4 and is headed "appeal against levy of any tax or fee," and the period of sixty days of limitation commences from the date of the publication of the notice 214 under r. 4 i.e. the notice following the decision of a Panchayat to levy any tax or fee. |
| This date shows that r. 5 is dealing only with appeals against levy of any tax and not with the assessment or imposition of a tax or any further appeals to the Panchayat Samiti under section 124(5). |
| In its context and setting the heading of r. 5 brings out the scope of the rule, [220 F H]. |
| Accordingly the appeal of the company to the Samiti was wrongly dismissed as time barred. |
| It followed from this that the Standing Committee was entitled to deal with the appeal on merits. |
| [220 H]. |
|
|
