The notification imposing an octroi duty under S. 67(7) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 is conclusive evidence that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Judgment

KAPUR, J : This is an appeal on a certificate by the High Court of Bombay against the judgment and order of that Court passed on a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the present appellants in regard to the legality of the notification levying an octroi duty on certain goods.

2. The appellants are some of the ratepayers of the Municipal Committee of Shegaon which is respondent No. 1 in this appeal. The other respondent is the State of Bombay. The appellants were carrying on trade and business which involved their bringing goods within the limits of the Municipal Committee. On July 25, 1954, the Municipal Committee passed a resolution for the purpose of levying an octroi duty instead of terminal tax. This resolution was published in the State Gazette on June 29, 1956, along with rules for assessment. On August 4, 1956, objections were invited to the proposed tax. The objections by the first appellant were filed on August 4, 1956, and by some others on August 5 and 6. At a meeting of the Municipal Committee dated August 16, 1956, the objections of the other appellants were rejected as being time barred and those by the first appellant were rejected because it was the only objector whose objections were within time. Some representations were made by the first appellant to the Government and a few days later the other objectors also made similar representations but the Government issued the notification sanctioning the imposition of the tax and the Draft Rules on October 27, 1956, though the Gazette Notifications were published on two separate dates, i.e., October 30 and October 31, 1956. The appellants then filed a petition under Art. 226 in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur challenging the legality of the imposition of the tax. Two main grounds were urged: (1) that the notification was ultra vires because S. 67 of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922 (Act II of 1922), hereinafter termed the Act , had not been complied with and (2) that the rate of tax in regard to certain articles was unauthorised in that it was more than the maximum which could be levied under the law. The High Court rejected the first ground but accepted the second objection and gave relief accordingly.

3. Appellants Nos. 2 to 6 have not taken steps for the prosecution of the appeal and the appeal, in so far as it relates to them, is dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. The appellant No. 1 before us has challenged the vires of the imposition on two grounds: (1) that all the steps necessary for the imposition of the octroi duty had not been taken and therefore S. 67 had not been complied with and (2) that as a matter of fact there was no notification imposing an octroi duty. For the purpose of the decision of these objections it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the Act, Chapter IX of which relates to the imposition, assessment and collection of taxes. Section 66 enumerates the taxes which may be imposed and S. 67 prescribes the procedure for imposing taxes. Section 67 reads as under- Section 67:(1) "A committee may, at a special meeting, pass a resolution to propose the imposition of any tax under section 66.

(2) When such a resolution has been passed, the committee shall publish in accordance with rules made under this Act, a notice defining the class of persons or description of property proposed to be taxed, the amount or rate of the tax to be imposed and the system of assessment to be adopted.

(3) Any inhabitant of the municipality objecting to the proposed tax may, within thirty days from the publication of the notice, submit his objection in writing to the committee.

(4) The committee shall take the proposal and all objections received thereto into consideration at a special meeting, and may modify the proposals so as not to affect their substance, and may then forward them to the Provincial Government along with all objections received, its decisions thereon and its reasons therefor. If the committee decided to modify the propos