ORDER :- This Revision Application is directed against a reversing decree and judgment passed by the Joint Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1978. The claim involved being in a sum below Rs. 3,000 the present Revision Application is filed.

2. The suit out of which this Revision Application has arisen was filed by Washim Municipal Council against one Chaganlal to recover octroi duty of Rupees 1,625 from the said Chaganlal for having imported a truck No. MHV 2576 within Washim Municipal area. The said truck was registered at the Ansing address in the name of Chaganlal. Ansing is a village about 20 miles away from Washim. It was so registered under the Motor Vehicles Act at the aforesaid village.

3. The defence of the defendant was that the vehicle was not registered within the Washim Municipal areas that it was not brought to Washim Municipal Area when it was first purchased; that he did not give Ansing address to evade tax and that octroi duty was not liable to be paid as the truck was not brought in Washim Municipal area for consumption, use or sale" by the defendant.

4. The learned trial Judge held that the truck was brought within the Municipal area of Washim and that the defendant had brought it within the meaning of the word "bringing" in the Octroi Rules. He, therefore, decreed the plaintiff's suit.

5. Aggrieved by that judgment and decree, the defendant preferred an appeal before the District Judge. Akola. The learned Joint Judge who heard that appeal by judgment and order dt. 20-2-1979 held that no octroi was leviable as the truck could not be said to have been brought within the Municipal area for "consumption, use or sale therein". In that view of the matter he held that octroi was not leviable and dismissed the suit allowing the appeal.

6. Evidence was led in the trial court which evidence was considered by both the Courts. That evidence in his opinion did not succeed, or was sufficient to bring the facts within the definition of goods liable to octroi, namely consumption, use or sale. In other words, the learned Joint Judge held that the evidence did not succeed in establishing that the defendant was using the truck within the Municipal area. He observed that "It appears from the evidence on record that the truck is used in different States and it is possible to imagine that the defendant might be carrying on the goods from Washim also to other places. Mere place of business of the defendant would not render the motor truck to be taxed". He referred to a number of decisions which were cited before him both by the appellant as well as the respondent and came to the conclusion that "the plaintiff has not satisfactorily established that the truck of the defendant was used within the municipal limits of Washim and as such the defendant was not liable to pay octroi". He also held that the interpretation of the word 'use' must be made in such a manner as to be favourable to the defendant. He considered that as an obligation in view of the fact that octroi was a taxing statute and following the decisions in Central India Spinning, Weaving and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Committee. Wardha, AIR 1958 SC 341 and A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala. AIR 1957 SC 657 he held that octroi being a taxing statute, where two interpretations were possible, the interpretation in favour of the citizen must be accepted. While holding so, he did not record any conclusion as to what in his opinion is the second interpretation of the word 'use' which was applicable and which the defendant, owner of the truck, satisfied so as to be given the benefit of the alternate interpretation favourable to the citizen in a taxing statute. He also did not conclude on the basis of the evidence and facts as to for what purpose the vehicle was being put to use or used. if at all, within the Washim Municipal area.

7. Two questions arise and fall for determination in the present case. The first is whether considering the evidence, the vehicle could be said to be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document