The main legal point established is that the contractor can only collect the tax assessed and is not entitled to enforce coercive recovery. The power of recovery is vested with the competent authority under Chapter VIII of the Act.

( 1 ) APPELLANT has filed a writ petition before the single Bench under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india for quashing the resolution of respondent no. 2 Municipal Council, Morena and respondent No. 3 President-In-Council, morena granting contract for recovery of terminal tax to respondent No. 4 Neeraj sharma. Appellant petitioner has challenged the action of the State Government whereby the State Government has set aside the order dated 6-2-2003 passed by the Collector. District Morena, Petitioner had further prayed that the agreement dated 23-6-2003 and the supplementary agreement dated 10-7-2003 between Municipal Council, Morena and respondent No. 4 Neeraj Sharma be quashed being contrary to law. Petition has been dismissed by the single Bench. Thereafter, this letters patent appeal is filed.

( 2 ) COUNSEL for the appellant, submitted that rules known as Terminal Tax (Assessment and Collection) on the Goods Exported from M. P. Municipal Limits Rules, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the "rules of 1996") have been framed. Rule 3 of the said rules of 1996 provides that every person, businessman, establishment and the license holder under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 shall be responsible to collect the terminal tax on the goods at the rate specified in the schedule, if he himself exports any goods as shown in the schedule or sale for the purpose of export. Rule 4 provides that the person, businessman, establishment or license holder, as mentioned in Rule 3 shall deposit in the municipal Treasury the amount of terminal tax collected during the last months on the goods exported from the Municipal limits through their shop establishment along with the return up to 10th day of every month. Rule 5 provides that on examination of the return, if the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Municipal Officer, as the case may be, requires any additional information, he shall give notice to the person concerned, businessman, establishment or in case of Krishi Upaj Mandi its licence holder, and they shall submit such information within thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice. Competent Authority i. e. Chief Municipal Officer in the cases of municipal Council and Nagar Panchayat and commissioner in the case of Municipal Corporation may enter in the shop concerned, establishment or Mandi as the case may be to enquire into the information furnished in the return and rnay inspect the record as may be necessary. Rule 7 provides that on failure to submit the return and deposit terminal tax with the Municipal Treasury within the specified period, surcharge at the rate of five per rent per month shall be levied and in case of submission of wrong return, the amount equal to ten times of the tax shall be payable. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the concerned assessee is required to recover the terminal tax and deposit with the Municipal Treasury and submit return. Authority, if not satisfied with the return may take action as provided under rules 5 and 6 of the Rules of 1996 and if no return is filed, then surcharge may be recovered under Rule 7 or penalty be imposed for furnishing wrong return. He submitted that in these circumstances act of the respondent-Municipal Council in granting contract for recovery of export tax is contrary to law and such procedure is impermissible under the law. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that a representation was submitted to the Collector, morena and the Collector, Morena vide order dated 6-2-2003 has stayed the proceedings of granting contract for recovery of terminal tax. Respondents proceeded with the auction and granted contract for recovery of export tax to respondent No. 4 Neeraj sharma. Petition was opposed by the respondents and considering the rival contentions single bench has dismissed the petition. In support of his contention, counsel for the appellant has referred to the single bench judgment of this Court in the cas