Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—This bunch of writ petitions is against the issuance of the citation for recovery of arrears of octroi and are being decided together. For facility, the facts of Writ Petition No. 1264 of 2008 are being taken into consideration.

2. The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking and is controlled by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and supply of Petroleum Products including Motor Spirit High Speed Diesel Oil and Kerosene.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the Municipal Board, Bareilly issued a notification dated 7.5.1963, under Section 135(2) read with Section 136 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1916), imposing Octroi on goods and animals being brought within the octroi limit of Bareilly Municipality.

4. However, various exemptions were given exempting certain items from levy of octroi duty. One such exemption related to mineral oil classified as motor spirit, diesel and kerosene brought within the octroi limit of Bareilly Municipality. Consequently, mineral oils remained exempted from payment of octroi duty. However, by means of a notification dated 27.8.1969, the octroi schedule was amended and motor spirit, diesel and kerosene were included for levy of octroi duty. As a result of this notification, octroi duty became leviable on mineral oils w.e.f. 27th August, 1969.

5. Certain dealers of District Bareilly filed two writ petitions before this Court challenging the validity of levy of octroi duty on the mineral oils by means of notification dated 27.8.1969, in which the petitioner was impleaded as a respondent. A learned single Judge by a judgment dated 26.9.1972 allowed these writ petitions and quashed the notification dated 27.8.1969. The writ Court restrained the Municipal Board, Bareilly from realizing the octroi duty on mineral oils classified as motor spirit, diesel and kerosene. The learned single Judge further issued a direction that any amount so deposited as octroi duty during the pendency of the writ petition shall be refunded by the Municipal Board to the petitioner

6. Against the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Municipal Board filed a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed by a Division Bench and, being aggrieved, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was entertained. The Supreme Court of India, by judgment dated 4.12.1989, allowed the Civil Appeal of the Municipal Board holding that the Municipal Board, Bareilly had the authority to levy octroi on mineral oils and that the High Court was in error in quashing the notification and restraining the Municipal Board from collecting octroi duty. The said judgment is in Municipal Board, Bareilly v. Bharat Oil Company and others, 1990 (1) SCC 311.

7. The petitioner allege that pursuant to the judgment of the learned single Judge, octroi duty was not being paid by them since the said notification was quashed and after the decision of the Supreme Court in 1989, no steps were taken by the Municipal Board to realize the octroi duty. The petitioner contends that, for the first time, it received a notice dated 4.1.2007 demanding octroi duty for the period dated 1.5.1969 to 2.5.1986 amounting to Rs. 6,63,24,542.70 including interest @ 12% per annum upto 31.8.2006. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner pointed out that no octroi duty could be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not liable to pay any octroi duty. The petitioner contended that inspite of submitting a reply, the respondents issued a recovery certificate/citation dated 5.6.2008 for recovery of Rs. 6,63,24,542.70. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said citation, has filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the citation dated 5.6.2008 as well as for the quashing of the attachment order by which the bank account of the petitione