{"id":215491,"date":"1989-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989"},"modified":"2016-09-11T22:41:26","modified_gmt":"2016-09-11T17:11:26","slug":"municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989","title":{"rendered":"Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 548, \t\t 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 376<\/div>\n
Author: M Fathima Beevi<\/div>\n
Bench: Fathima Beevi, M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMUNICIPAL BOARD, BAREILLY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBHARAT OIL COMPANY AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/12\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\nBENCH:\nFATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)\nSAIKIA, K.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  548\t\t  1989 SCR  Supl. (2) 376\n 1990 SCC  (1) 311\t  JT 1989 (4)\t453\n 1989 SCALE  (2)1269\n\n\nACT:\n    U.P. Municipalities Act 1916\/U.P. Municipal Account Code\n1925\/U.P.  Octroi Rules, 1925: Section\t128\/Chapter  X\/Rules\n13123 I--Octroi--Levy Or'on mineral oil--Permissibility of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant  is\ta Municipal Board  governed  by\t the\nprovisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916. Section 128\nof the Act provides for imposition of taxes by the Board. In\nexercise of the powers under Sections 131 to 135 and 296  of\nthe  Act,  the\tGovernment of the  United  Provinces  framed\noctroi rules. The said rules were included in the  Municipal\nAccount\t Code (Chapter X rules 131 to 231). The\t proviso  to\nRule 131 provided that octroi shall not be levied on certain\narticles  which included mineral oil. The rule\twas  amended\nvide  notification dated the 2nd November 1953 and  for\t the\nwords  \"the mineral oil\" in the proviso, the words  \"mineral\noils  classified  as motor spirit, kerosene or\tdiesel\toil\"\nwere substituted.\n    Separate  rules  for the assessment\t and  collection  of\noctroi in the Bareily Municipality were framed by the  Govt.\nof  U.P.  The draft rules were\tnotified  vide\tnotification\ndated the 16th February 1963. Final rules were notified vide\nnotification  dated the 7th May 1963 and published  in\tU.P.\nGazette dated the 11th May 1963. By a notification dated the\n24th  July  1963, published in U.P. Gazette  dated  the\t 3rd\nAugust,\t 1963,\tthe appellant Board imposed octroi  duty  on\ngoods and animals brought within the octroi limits of Barei-\nly  Municipality for consumption, use and sale at the  rates\nshown  in  the Schedule subject to certain  exceptions\tmen-\ntioned\ttherein. The said notification came  into  operation\nfrom November 16, 1963 and thereafter the levy of octroi  in\nBareily Municipality was governed by 1963 rules. The  amend-\nments were made in the octroi schedule both in the rates  as\nwell  as  in  the exemption and as a  result  whereof  motor\nspirit, kerosene and diesel oil were removed from the exemp-\ntion clause and were subjected to the octroi duty  @ 1 paisa\nper liter vide notification dated August 27, 1969.\nThe respondents challenged the validity of the\tnotification\ndated\n377\nthe 27th August 1969 by means of a writ petition before\t the\nHigh Court on the ground that 1925 rules took away the power\nfrom  all Municipal Boards to impose octroi duty on  mineral\noils  and  until  such power is restored  under\t a  contrary\nnotification issued under section 128 of the Act, the  Board\ndid  not have any justification to assess or collect  octroi\nduty on mineral ohs. The appellant Board contended that Rule\n131 was superseded by the 1963 rules which now governed\t the\nimposition  of\toctroi by the appellant\t Board.\t The  single\nJudge  of the High Court who heard the petition came to\t the\nconclusion  that Rule 131 restricted the power of the  Board\nto impose the octroi and the subject-matter of the rule\t was\nnot  covered  by  the 1963 rules.  The\tappellant's  appeals\npreferred  before  the Division Bench were  dismissed  which\ntook  the  view that the bar under Rule\t 131  regarding\t the\nimposition of octroi duty on mineral oils continued notwith-\nstanding the 1963 Rules. Hence these appeals by the  Munici-\npal Board.\nAllowing the appeals, this Court,\n    HELD: The rule making power under section 296 read\twith\nSection\t 300(2) of the Act enables the State  Government  to\nexcept any one municipality from the operation of the gener-\nal rule by express provision in that behalf. When the  iden-\ntical  authority in exercise of its rule making\t power\tduly\nframes\tthe  rules in respect of the same  matter  expressly\nproviding  that\t the new rules shah apply  to  a  particular\nmunicipality in supersession of the existing rules, it\tmust\nbe  deemed that existing rules are repealed to that  extent.\n[384C-D]\n    The 1963 rules had been framed under Section 296 of\t the\nAct in supersession of the existing rules after the publica-\ntion  by  the State Government, in the Gazette\tas  provided\nunder  Section 300 and therefore rule 131 in the 1925  rules\nceased to have any operation in respect of the matters dealt\nwith  therein  so far as the Bareilly municipality  is\tcon-\ncerned. [384D]\n    M\/s\t Central Distillery Chemicals Works Ltd. &  Anr.  v.\nState of U.P. & Ors., [1980] All L.J. 62, approved.\n    Municipality  of Anand v. State of Bombay, AIR<\/a>  1962  SC\n988;  Municipal Board, Hapur v. Raghuvendra Kripal  &  Ors.,<\/a>\n[1966] 1 SCR 950; Mool Chand v. Municipal Board, Banda,\t AIR\n1926  All.  517; Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State\t of  Bombay,<\/a>\n[1955]\t1 SCR 799 and The Municipality or Anand v. State  of\nBombay, [1962] 2 Supp. SCR 366, referred to\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  993  &
\n994 of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
378<\/span><\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  16.9.1974  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in Spl. Civil Appeal Nos. 622 & 623  of
\n1972.\n<\/p>\n
R.K. Virmani for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
M.V. Goswami and S.S. Khanduja for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    M.\tFATHIMA\t BEEVI, J. 1. These two appeals\t by  special
\nleave  are filed by the Municipal Board,  Bareilly,  against
\nthe  judgment of the Allahabad High Court quashing  the\t Ga-
\nzette Notification dated August 27, 1969 amending the octroi
\nschedule of the Bareilly Municipality so as to impose octroi
\non “mineral oil”.\n<\/p>\n
    2.\tThe respondents Bharat Oil Company and others  filed
\nwrit  petitions\t under Article 226 of  the  Constitution  of
\nIndia challenging the notification on the ground inter\talia
\nthat the appellant, the Municipal Board Bareilly  (hereinaf-
\nter  referred to as ‘the Board’) had no authority to  impose
\noctroi on mineral oil in view of the proviso to Rule 13 1 of
\nthe  octroi  Rules contained in the U.P.  Municipal  Account
\nCode, 1925. This was countered by the appellant stating that
\nthe  R. 13 1 was superseded by the 1963 rules  which  govern
\nthe imposition of octroi by the appellant Board. The  Single
\nJudge  in  allowing the Writ Petitions took  the  view\tthat
\nR.131 restricted the power of the Board to impose the octroi
\nand  the  subject-matter of the rule is not covered  by\t the
\n1963  rules.  The appeals preferred were  dismissed  by\t the
\nDivision Bench of the High Court agreeing that the bar under
\nR.  131 ‘regarding the imposition of octroi duty on  mineral
\noils continued notwithstanding the 1963 rules.\n<\/p>\n
    3.\tThe appellant is a Municipal Board governed  by\t the
\nprovisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter
\nreferred  to as ‘the Act’). Section 128 of the Act  provides
\nfor  imposition of taxes by a Municipal Board. The  relevant
\npart of the said section reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “128.  Taxes which may be imposed (1)  Subject
\n\t      to any general rules or special orders or’ the
\n\t      State  Government\t in this behalf,  the  taxes
\n\t      which  a board may impose in the whole or\t any
\n\t      part of a municipality are–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)\t   x\t\t\t\t   x\n\t      x\n\t      379<\/span>\n\t\t    (viii)  an\toctroi On goods\t or  animals\n<\/pre>\n
\t      brought without the municipality for  consump-
\n\t      tion, use or sale therein.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4.\tSections 13 1 to 135 of the Act\t contain  provisions
\nrelating  to the framing of proposals for the imposition  of
\ntaxes  by  the Municipal Board, inviting objections  to\t the
\nsaid  proposal,\t the approval of the said  proposal  by\t the
\nState Government, the framing of rules by the State  Govern-
\nment  on the basis of such proposals, under Section  296  of
\nthe Act and for the issue of a notification about the  impo-
\nsition of tax from the appointed date.\n<\/p>\n
    5.\tSection 153 of the Act provides that assessment\t and
\ncollection of taxes and other matters relating to taxes\t may
\nbe  regulated by Rules. Section 296 empowers the State\tGov-
\nernment\t to  make rules in respect of matters  described  in
\nSection 153.\n<\/p>\n
    6. In exercise of the powers under Sections 13 1 to\t 135
\nand  296 of the Act, the Government of the United  Provinces
\nframed\toctroi rules which were published vide\tnotification
\ndated the 25th October, 1925. The said rules are included in
\nthe  Municipal Account Code (Chapter X Rules 13 1 to  23  1)
\npublished by the Government of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
    7.\tRule  13 1 provided that subject to  the  exceptions
\ncontained in the proviso octroi may be ordinarily levied  on
\ncommodities  included in the list set-out in the said  rule.
\nThe  proviso  to this rule stated that octroi shall  not  be
\nlevied on certain articles which included mineral oil.\tRule
\n131  was amended vide notification dated the  2nd  November,
\n1953 and for the words “the mineral oil” in the proviso\t the
\nwords “mineral oils classified as motor spirit, kerosene  or
\ndiesel oil” were substituted.\n<\/p>\n
    8.\tSeparate rules for the assessment and collection  of
\noctroi\tin  the\t Bareilly Municipality were  framed  by\t the
\nGovernment  of U.P. in exercise of the powers  conferred  by
\nSection\t 296 of the Act. The draft rules were notified\tvide
\nnotification dated the 16th February, 1963 and published  in
\nthe U.P. Gazette dated 23rd February, 1963. The said notifi-
\ncation reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “No..89-B\/XI-C-129-60. The following draft  of
\n\t      the rules for the assessment and collection of
\n\t      octroi in the Bareilly Municipality, in super-
\n\t      session of the existing octroi rules contained
\n\t      in  the  Municipal Account Code in so  far  as
\n\t      they apply to the said municipality, which the
\n\t      Governor of Uttar
\n\t      380<\/span>
\n\t      Pradesh  proposes to make, in exercise of\t the
\n\t      powers  conferred by Section 296 of  the\tU.P.
\n\t      Municipalities  Act, 1916 (U.P. Act No. II  of
\n\t      1916), is published as required by  subsection
\n\t      (1)  of section 300 of the said Act,  for\t the
\n\t      information  of all concerned with a  view  to
\n\t      invite  objections and suggestions in  respect
\n\t      thereof”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9. Final Rules were notified vide notification dated the
\n7th  May, 1963 and published by the Government in  the\tU.P.
\nGazette dated the 11th May, 1963 as required under S. 300 of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
    10. By notification dated the 24th July, 1963  published
\nin  the U.P. Gazette dated the August 3, 1963 the  appellant
\nBoard  imposed\toctroi\tduty on goods  and  animals  brought
\nwithin\tthe octroi limits of Bareilly Municipality for\tcon-
\nsumption, use and sale at the rates shown in the schedule to
\nthe  said  notification and subject to the  exceptions\tcon-
\ntained\ttherein. Item 29 of the exceptions contained in\t the
\nschedule  related  to  “mineral oils”  classified  as  motor
\nspirit, kerosene and diesel oil. The said notification\tcame
\ninto  operation from November 16, 1963. Thereafter the\tlevy
\nof octroi in the Bareilly Municipality was governed by\t1963
\nrules. The amendments were made in the octroi schedule\tboth
\nin  the\t rates as well as in the exemption and as  a  result
\nthereof\t motor spirit, kerosene and diesel oil were  removed
\nfrom  the exemption clause and were subjected to the  octroi
\nduty @ 1 paisa per litre vide notification dated August\t 27,
\n1969.\n<\/p>\n
    11.\t The  validity of the notification  dated  the\t27th
\nAugust,\t 1969  was challenged before the High Court  in\t the
\nWrit Petitions Nos. 1805 and 4696 of 1970 by respondents  on
\nthe  ground  that 1925 rules take away the  power  from\t all
\nMunicipal Boards to impose octroi duty on mineral .oils\t and
\nuntil  such power is restored under a contrary\tnotification
\nissued under Section 128 of the Act, the Board did not\thave
\nany justification to assess or collect octroi duty on miner-
\nal oils.\n<\/p>\n
    12.\t The impugned judgment proceeded on the\t basis\tthat
\nRules  13 1 to 133 of the 1925 rules have been made  by\t the
\nState Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it
\nby  the\t opening words of Section 128(1) and  they  are\t not
\nrules under section 153 for the assessment and collection of
\noctroi.\t It was also held that the subject-matter  of  these
\nrules  is not covered by the 1963 rules and, therefore,\t the
\n1963  rules  cannot supersede R. 13 1 of the 1925  Rules.  A
\nFull  Bench of the Allahabad High Court in M\/s Central\tDis-
\ntillery\t Chemicals Works Ltd. & Another v. State of  U.P.  &
\nOthers, [1980] All L.J. 62 following the
\n381<\/span>
\ndecision of this Court in Municipality of Anand v. State  of
\nBombay,\t A.I.R.<\/a> 1962 SC 988 overruled the impugned  decision
\nholding\t that the special rules which are in relation  to  a
\nparticular  tax and a particular Municipal Board will  over-
\nride or supersede the general rules framed by State  Govern-
\nment  under  Section 153 read with Section 296.\t The  appel-
\nlant’s learned counsel relied on the Full Bench decision and
\nmaintained  that the rules framed by the Board prevail\tover
\nthe  rules contained in the Municipal Account Code  and\t the
\nnotification is, therefore, valid. In our view the  approach
\nmade  by  the Full Bench of the High Court  in\tM\/s  Central
\nDistillery Chemicals Works Ltd. v. State of U.P., (supra) is
\ncorrect and has to be approved.\n<\/p>\n
    13.\t As  pointed out by this Court in  Municipal  Board,
\nHapur  v.  Raghuvendra Kripal and Others,<\/a> [1966] 1  SCR\t 950
\ntaxes raised by a local authority are not imposed by it as a
\nlegislature but as a delegate of the legislature. The tax is
\nvalid one if it is one of the taxes the local authority\t can
\nraise  and  the delegate imposes it in accordance  with\t the
\nconditions laid down by the legislature. The taxes that\t can
\nbe  raised in exercise of delegated power are  predetermined
\nand  procedure\tis  prescribed by the  Municipal  Act.\tThus
\nSection\t 128 of the U.P. Municipalities Act confers  on\t the
\nmunicipalities in the State the power to levy taxes  enumer-
\nated thereunder. The power conferred is not absolute but  is
\nsubject to any general rules or special orders of the  State
\nGovernment  in this behalf. Section 128(1) does\t not  confer
\nany  independent  rule making power. The general  rules\t re-
\nferred\tto  in\tthat Section can only be the  rules  in\t the
\nmatter of such levy specified in Section 153 of the Act\t and
\nframed\tin  exercise of the power under Section 296  of\t the
\nAct. The State Government is empowered under Section 296  to
\nmake  rules  consistent with the Act in respect\t of  matters
\ndescribed  in  Section 153. Rules framed under\tSection\t 153
\nconstitute  the exclusive machinery for assessment and\tcol-
\nlection of taxes. The relevant part of Section 153 reads  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “153.  Rules as to assessment, collection\t and
\n\t      other matters. The following matters shall  be
\n\t      regulated\t and governed by rules except in  so
\n\t      far as provision therefor is made by this Act,
\n\t      namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a) the assessment, collection or\t composition
\n\t      of taxes, and, in the case of octroi or  toll,
\n\t      the determination of octroi or toll limit;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      382<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (f)  any\tother matter relating  to  taxes  in
\n\t      respect  of which this Act makes no  provision
\n\t      or  insufficient provision and provision,\t is,
\n\t      in the opinion of the State Government  neces-
\n\t      sary.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  prescribing the procedure for the impositon of taxes  by
\nthe board, Section 13 1 of the Act requires the board  while
\nframing\t the proposal to prepare a draft of the rules  which
\nit  desires the State Government to make in respect  of\t the
\nmatters\t referred  to in Section 153 and publish  the  same.
\nWhen the proposals have been sanctioned the State Government
\nmakes  the necessary rules in respect of the tax under\tSec-
\ntion 296. The rules referred to in Section 128(1) are  rules
\nthus  framed  by the State Government under Section  296  in
\nrespect\t of  matters  referred to in  Section  153.  Section
\n300(2)\texpressly provides that any rule or regulation\tmade
\nby  the State Government may be general for all\t municipali-
\nties  or  may be special for anyone municipality as  it\t di-
\nrects.\n<\/p>\n
    14.\t The  Municipal Manual published by  the  Government
\ncontains the general rules made by the Government under\t the
\nAct and general orders issued in Volume 1. The second volume
\ncontains  the Municipal Account Code. The General Rules\t and
\norders\tare  contained in Chapter I to XII of  Part  I.\t The
\nExplanation in Chapter I reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Rules in this Manual, which are  printed
\n\t      in  pica\ttype, together with  their  explana-
\n\t      tions, illustrations and exceptions, have\t the
\n\t      force of law, having been made by the  Govern-
\n\t      ment  in exercise of the powers  conferred  by
\n\t      section  296  of the Act,\t and,  except  where
\n\t      otherwise stated, are applicable to all munic-
\n\t      ipalities.  The  notifications in\t which\tthey
\n\t      were published are referred to on the  margins
\n\t      of the pages.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Part II contains the model rules, bye laws and\tregulations.
\nSection A deals with Rules with reference to Section 153  of
\nthe Act thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The following model rules have been framed by
\n\t      the Government for the assessment and  collec-
\n\t      tion of taxes other than octroi under  section
\n\t      153 and 296 of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       It  is anticipated that they will  be
\n\t      found  generally\tapplicable  to\tthe  circum-
\n\t      stances  of the municipalities of these  prov-
\n\t      inces,  and  it is desirable  that  the  model
\n\t      forms
\n\t      383<\/span>
\n\t      should be adhered to unless there are  special
\n\t      reasons justifying any divergence from them.
\n\t\t\tIn  forwarding\tproposals  for\t the
\n\t      imposition of additional taxation, boards\t are
\n\t      reminded\tthat  the necessary  rules  for\t the
\n\t      assessment  and collection of the taxes to  be
\n\t      imposed  should be forwarded at the same\ttime
\n\t      as  the tax proposals, and it will  facilitate
\n\t      the  disposal of such cases if any  deviations
\n\t      from the model forms printed below are specif-
\n\t      ically referred to in the proposals submitted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Vol. II contains the Municipal Account Code. Chapter X deals
\nwith  octroi  and provides in R. 13 1 that  subject  to\t the
\nexceptions contained in the proviso octroi shall  ordinarily
\nbe levied on commodities included in the list. In Mool Chand
\nv.  Municipal  Board, Banda, AIR 1926 All 5 17 it  was\theld
\nthat  the rules contained in the Code have as much force  of
\nlaw as the Act itself. The octroi rules contained in Chapter
\nX of the Municipal Account Code are general rules framed  by
\nthe  State Government in respect of matters referred  to  in
\nSection 153 in exercise of power under Section 296 and refer
\nto  the levy and govern the assessment, collection etc.\t The
\nrules are general for all municipalities. The 1963 rules are
\nframed\tfor  the appellant board expressly  superseding\t the
\ngeneral\t rules\tin  so far as they apply  to  the  appellant
\nboard. By framing the 1963 rules the government evinced\t the
\nintention to cover the field which was covered by 1925 rules
\nin  so far as the Bareilly Municipality was  concerned.\t The
\nsubject-matter\tdealt within 1963 rules is the same as\tthat
\ndealt  with  in 1925 rules. The intention to  supersede\t the
\nearlier\t rules is clearly expressed. The rule has the  force
\nof  law. Rule 13 1 of 1925 rules has no longer any  applica-
\ntion in the matter of levying octroi by the appellant board.
\nThat  rule stands repealed in so far as the appellant  Board
\nis  concerned. The rule cannot, therefore, be read  as\tcur-
\ntailing\t the power under Section 128(1)(viii) of the Act  to
\nimpose octroi. Rules do not enlarge or restrict the authori-
\nty  to\timpose tax. Authority is conferred by  the  section.
\nRules  are only regulating the exercise of that\t power.\t The
\nimposition  of the tax and the regulation of its  assessment
\nand  collections are totally different matters and they\t are
\nclearly distinguished. In Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State  of
\nBombay,<\/a>\t [1955] 1 SCR 799 this Court reiterated the rule  of
\nconstruction  that  if a later statute deals with  the\tsame
\nsubject-matter and varies the procedure the earlier  statute
\nis  repealed  by the later statute. In The  Municipality  or
\nAnand v. State of Bombay, [1962] 2 Supp. SCR 366  construing
\ns.  ,59 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901 which  is
\nin pari materia with
\n384<\/span>
\ns.  128 of the U.P. Municipalites Act, this Court  said\t the
\nword  ‘impose’\tin s. 59 meant the actual levy\tof  the\t tax
\nafter  authority to levy it had been acquired by rules\tduly
\nmade  and sanctioned and this imposition was subject to\t the
\ngeneral\t or special orders of the government.  The  opending
\nwords of S. 128 are capable of similar construction and\t the
\nimposition  has to be understood as the actual levy  subject
\nto  the general rules and special orders contemplated  under
\nthe other provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    15.\t The rule making power under Section 296  read\twith
\nSection\t 300(2) of the Act enables the State  Government  to
\nexcept anyone
\nmunicipality  from  the\t operation of the  general  rule  by
\nexpress provision in that behalf. When the identical author-
\nity  in\t exercise of its rule making power duly\t frames\t the
\nrules in respect of the same matter expressly providing that
\nthe  new rules shall apply to a particular  municipality  in
\nsupersession  of the existing rules, it must be deemed\tthat
\nexisting  rules are repealed to that extent. The 1963  rules
\nhad been framed under Section 296 of the Act in supersession
\nof the existing rules after publication by the State Govern-
\nment,  in  the\tGazette as provided under  Section  300\t and
\ntherefor  Rule\t13 1 in the 1925 rules ceased  to  have\t any
\noperation  in respect of the matters dealt with\t therein  so
\nfar as the Bareilly municipality is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
    16. In this view of the matter, we hold that the  appel-
\nlant Board had authority to levy octroi on mineral oils\t and
\nchallenge against the impugned notification is not  sustain-
\nable.  The High Court was clearly in error in  quashing\t the
\nsame and restraining the Board from assessing and collecting
\nthe tax.\n<\/p>\n
    We accordingly allow the appeal and set-aside the  judg-
\nment of the High Court. In the circumstances of these cases,
\nwe, however, make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Y. Lal
\n385<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 548, 1989 SCR Supl. (2) 376 Author: M Fathima Beevi Bench: Fathima Beevi, M. (J) PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL BOARD, BAREILLY Vs. RESPONDENT: BHARAT OIL COMPANY AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/12\/1989 BENCH: FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-215491","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMunicipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-11T17:11:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-11T17:11:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989\"},\"wordCount\":2680,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989\",\"name\":\"Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-11T17:11:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-11T17:11:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989","datePublished":"1989-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-11T17:11:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989"},"wordCount":2680,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989","name":"Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-11T17:11:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-bareilly-vs-bharat-oil-company-and-ors-on-4-december-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Municipal Board, Bareilly vs Bharat Oil Company And Ors on 4 December, 1989"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215491","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=215491"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215491\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215491"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215491"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215491"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}