JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---This first appeal is at the instance of Bombay Municipal Corporation and the Assessor and Collector, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2000 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court whereby the appeal filed by the present respondent under section 217 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act has been allowed and the Appellate Authority directed the present appellants to cancel or withdraw the letter dated 30th December, 1999 and further asked them to refund the amount of Rs. 37,08,000/- to the present respondent.

2. By way of an agreement entered into between the present respondent with the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (M.T.N.L.), the present respondent was given work of printing of the telephone directory. As per the agreement, the telephone directory was printed by the present respondent in four volumes. Out of these four volumes, first three volumes contain the residential address of subscribers of M.T.N.L. in Bombay and the fourth volume contains the alphabetically A to Z business entries only. Various consignments of said directories were not allowed to enter within the jurisdiction of Bombay Municipal Corporation without payment of octroi. Though the respondent herein claimed that the said telephone directories are exempted from payment of octroi, the Assessors and Collector (appellant No. 2 herein) sent a communication to M.T.N.L. with a copy to the present respondent that the telephone directories are subject to octroi under Entry 32 of Schedule 'H' appended to Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and therefore, they were advised to pay octroi on telephone directories which they intend to bring in Mumbai. It is the case of the present respondent that a sum of Rs. 37,08,000/- was paid by them to the appellants towards octroi under protest in respect of the said directories. The present respondent initially filed the writ petition before this Court and upon its dismissal carried the matter to Supreme Court in S.L.P. but in view of the order dated 28-2-2000 passed by the Apex Court challenged the communication dated 30th December, 1999 and the recovery of amount of octroi by the appellants in appeal under section 217 of B.M.C. Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority recorded the evidence and after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 17th April, 2000 held that the present respondent was able to prove that the telephone directories of the year 1999 printed by them were not covered under Entry 32 of Schedule 'H' appended to the Act of 1888. The Appellate Authority thus held that the order passed by the appellant No. 2 herein holding that the telephone directories printed by respondent for M.T.N.L. are liable to octroi, is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority directed the present appellants to refund the amount of Rs. 37,08,000/- to the present respondent.

3. Assailing the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Mr. K.K. Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously urged that telephone directories printed by the present respondent are covered under taxable Entry 32 of Schedule 'H' on two counts viz. (i) because by the said telephone directories M.T.N.L. mainly publicise services for commercial purposes; and (ii) even otherwise, telephone directories are printed material analogous to annual reports, balance sheets etc. which are covered under Entry 32. Mr. Singhvi submitted that telephone directory provides information relating to various services in about 45 pages. Many of the entries have been printed in bold and superbold letters on extra charges from the subscribers and, therefore, it is nothing but a publication publicising services for commercial purposes. Mr. Singhvi also submitted that since the printed material such as annual reports, balance sheets give information regarding financial health of the Company, the printed material in the form of directory sets also pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document