JUDGMENT

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:- The petitioner-Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of aluminium products and its factory is located at Kalwa in Thane District (Maharashtra). The Company obtains aluminium as raw materials for consumption from another factory of theirs situated in a different State. With effect from 1-10-82 the Company at Kalwa was included in the municipal jurisdiction of Thane. Prior to that date the factory was not within the jurisdiction of Thane Municipality and did not have to pay any octroi on the raw materials brought into its factory at Kalwa. By a Notification dated 23-8-82, the Government of the City of Thane and Kalwa was brought within the jurisdiction of the Thane Municipal Corporation, the respondent herein and all goods imported into the area of the Thane Municipal Corporation were subjected to octroi at the rates mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1968 (Rules for short). Schedule 1 to the said Rules contains description of various goods and articles which were liable to octroi and minimum and maximum rates are prescribed. Item No. 77 in the said Schedule 1 to the said Rules covered non-ferrous metals, including aluminium and the entry provided for the levy of octroi duty on the aluminium and other goods mentioned therein at the minimum rate of 0.5% and at the maxmum of 4%. The respondent Corporation was levying octroi duty on the imports of aluminium raw materials made by the petitioner-Company into Kalwa at the rate of 1.3% from 1-10-19 82 to 14-4-1987. Then with effect from 15-4-87 the respondent-Corporation was levying octroi at the rate of 2%. On 18-5-87 at the Thane Manufacturers Association made a representation to the respondent-Corporation about the increase in octroi rates pointing out that the increase was having a disastrous effect on their industrial units located within the limits of the Corporation. In reply to the said representation, the respondent-Corporation addressed a letter dated 20-11-1987 in which it was pointed out and clarified inter alia that goods specified in Entry 77 in Schedule 1 to the said Rules, when raw material is imported for use in the manufacture of finished goods it would be subject to the levy of octroi not exceeding 1.25% and not less. On receipt of this letter the petitioner-Company made detailed enquiries and was informed that under Rule 4 of the said Rules the goods mentioned in Part IA of that Schedule which were imported by certain industrial undertakings are liable to be subjected to octroi at a lower rate. The Company also noticed further that Part IA of the Rules provided that the goods specified in Entry 77 when imported by an industrial undertaking for use as a raw material for processing within that undertaking and if a declaration in Form 14 is. filed, the levy of octroi in such cases would not exceed 1.25% and would not be less than 0.25%. The petitioner, however, did not file any such Form 14 duly filled in and according to them they acted under a mistake of law and under the bona fide impression that the octroi levied on and recovered by the Corporation at the rate of 1.3% in respect of the period from 1-10-82 to 14-4-87 and at the rate of 2% from 15-4-87 onwards, represented the correct rate. The petitioner however having later realised by going through the records and the financial accounts and other documents which are duly audited claimed refund of the excess of octroi duty which has been paid by them. On 8-3-88 the petitioner-Company addressed a letter to the respondent-Corporation pointing out that under a mistake of law they paid excess amount and therefore the excess amount so paid should be refunded. The respondentCorporation in their reply dated 16-5-88 stated that the petitioner-Company had not complied with the procedure specified in Part IA of the Schedule 11 to the said Rules for availing such concessional rates therefore the refund cannot be sanctioned. However, the peti