The publication of the 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, in accordance with S. 67 (2) of the C. P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922, is sufficient if it includes the rules relating to the rates at which the tax has been imposed.

Judgement

KAPUR, J. : This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Nagpur dismissing a petition under Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the imposition of the octroi tax under S. 66 (1) (e) of the C. P and Berar Municipalities Act (Act II of 1922) hereinafter termed the Act.

2. The appellants who were the petitioners in the High Court are some of the rate-payers of the town of Akola in the erstwhile State of Bombay and respondent No. 1 is the Municipal Committee, Akola. On November 11, 1957, respondent No. 1 passed a resolution to impose an octroi tax on animals and goods brought within the limits of the Akola Municipality. This resolution and the draft Rules of Assessment and Collection were later on forwarded by the Akola Municipality to the State Government for publication. A notification, dated January 3, 1958, was published in the Bombay Government Gazette on January 16, 1958. This Gazette Notification contained the draft rules, the schedule of goods liable to octroi duty and the rates to be charged. This was in accordance with the requirements of S. 67 (2) of the Act. Respondent No. 1, the Municipal Committee, affixed on the Notice Board of the Committee and published in the local newspapers the proposed rules for the imposition of the tax, but the objection of the appellants is that they did not publish along with them the draft of the "System of Assessment". It is true that a pamphlet in Marathi language was distributed in the town of Akola and the proposals were also published in the local newspaper Jan-Sewak. Objections to the proposals were filed by some of the rate-payers of the town of Akola and all of them were considered and a resolution was passed by the Municipal Committee on March 3, 1958, and that is the resolution which was challenged in the petition filed in the High Court by a petition, dated April 14, 1958, praying for the quashing of the resolution and for the issuing of a prohibitory order against the State Government against sanctioning the proposal sent by the Municipal Committee. On April 18, 1958, a rule was issued by the High Court to the opposite parties calling upon them to show cause why the order as prayed should not be made. This notice was served on the Special Government Pleader on May 9, 1958, and the Special Government Pleader put in his appearance on June 17, 1958. On June 23, 1958, an interim injunction was issued but previous to that on June 19, 1958, a final notification was issued by the Government approving of the proposal to impose the octroi tax. As a consequence of this the petition was allowed to be amended, but ultimately the High Court dismissed the petition and this appeal has been brought on a certificate of the High Court.

3. The sole question which has been debated before us is the legality of the imposition. The ground on which the legality is challenged is that there was no full compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 67 (2) of the Act. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with the relevant provisions of the Act. Chapter IX of the Act deals with Imposition, Assessment and Collection of taxes. Section 66 provides for the taxes which can be imposed and S. 67 deals with the mode of the imposition of the tax. By S. 71, the State Government is empowered to make rules regulating the assessment of taxes and for preventing evasion of assessment. Section 76 empowers the State Government to make rules regulating the collection of taxes and preventing evasion of payment. Section 85 empowers the State Government to make rules regulating the refund of taxes. But it was argued on behalf of the appellants that as the mandatory provisions of S. 67 as to publication of the "System of Assessment" in accordance with the rules were not complied with, the imposition of the tax was illegal. Reliance was placed on certain judgments, but it is not necessary to discuss those cases because in the circumstance